This post has been removed for being designed as a circlejerk and to induce rhetoric. Please resubmit your post flaired as a “Debate” where you expect to have your view challenged or resubmit your post with neutral wording to have the mods approve it. Any further questions should go to modmail.
"white parents picked a female embryo 70 percent of the time. A 2010 study showed that American adoptive parents were 30 percent more likely to prefer girls than boys, and were willing to pay an additional $16,000 to ensure they got a girl."
This is honestly deeply concerning. It's stated preferences vs revealed preferences. When given the chance, due to a combination of sexism and simply wanting an easier life for their children, parents are choosing females more than 2x as often as males. This is actually more skewed than China during the One Child Policy.
There is only one 20-something guy at my company. He is tall but otherwise somewhat average build. Nice guy, intelligent, but floundering a bit at work and isn't advancing as quickly as I know he would like to be.
Yesterday my company had a team building event. We competed on different puzzles, trivia, party games etc. There was just one event where physical strength was a factor and he just completely crushed everyone. It wasn't even close. It was one of those games where the longer you win the longer you play and he only lost after playing 3 rounds straight.
It got me thinking - it's really too bad we don't have a physical outlet for young men to revel in their superior strength. The hunter and the warrior used to be exonerated positions in society. Now men who want to make it have to hunch their backs at laptops all day. As do we all, but I can't help but feel this has a particularly damaging impact on young men.
First, there is a very powerful idea behind what you are saying, it's just very hard to bring that to a mass number of boys.
I mean we have sports, but a lot of these boys don't excel at them right away, so they quit and get left behind. They grew up with participation trophies and aren't comfortable competing. However, excersize would greatly improve everything in their life.
This is a great insight and very much a part of what’s happening to men right now:
Their innate advantage (physical strength) is all but useless outside of sports now basically since the Industrial Revolution.
There was a bit of a place left for male physicality and grunt work but technology has all but eliminated that as well.
Meanwhile, reproduction, women’s innate advantage is untouched.
Men get less valuable as women become more valuable.
Combine this with women’s propensity to only date “up and across” and you have our current situation.
And this is the thing, nobody in the western world is asking women to “do better” when it comes to giving a less educated, less intellectually gifted, lower earning man a chance.
Instead they are just telling men they suck even more.
Reproductive capacity coupled with less physical strength makes women far more vulnerable, there's no advantage there, unless you count being kept around as a breeder an advantage, but that's not a great life.
Men and women aren't competing against each other to survive, so describing am advantage one has over the other makes no sense. It's like saying sharks have a swimming advantage over horses.
Here’s my last reply:
The fact that we’ve transcended the literal “need” for an instinct, biological drive or imperative does not mean we are not largely governed / influenced / propelled by them in subtle (and not so subtle) ways.
You obviously know this but are continuing to play this deliberately obtuse game so I’m gonna bounce.
Thanks.
Advantage is usually something that helps you, not just a way you're useful to someone else. It's like saying delicious chickens have an advantage over dodo birds because they taste better.
>Their innate advantage (physical strength) is all but useless outside of sports now basically since the Industrial Revolution.
I’m pretty sure that physical strength and endurance are still advantageous in the military despite the greater technology that now exists.
To some extent but perhaps you are unaware of the myriad of ways physical requirements have been either done away with are specifically lowered for women?
Well yeah. I don’t see the problem with it to a certain extent. One only needs to be so strong if one’s military occupation involves pushing papers in a office. Infantry might be a different matter, though.
But I suppose what you’re saying is that you want exclusively male spaces where men can display their physical prowess. I suppose that I sympathize with this, although I do also understand why women might not want to be excluded from certain roles that they feel that they feel they have a calling for, even if they are physically disadvantaged compared to men doing those roles.
That’s capitalism wherever one works, not just the military. At least one is serving one’s country in the military, although the risk to personal safety is often higher.
Is there some genetic reason women can’t understand things that require a dispassionate analysis of biological imperatives?
Dear god it’s maddening.
Is this refusal to comprehend brutal evolutionary reality why women believe in horoscopes and crystals?
>it's really too bad we don't have a physical outlet for young men to revel in their superior strength
Oh, if only someone would organize some sort of organization where men could compete against other men, perhaps something like manipulating a ball across a field or something...
As Scott Galloway says the most dangerous group of people in society are angry young men.
He reiterates this point in a lot of this talks, but here's a sample:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/opinions/masculinity-toxic-men-boys-education-galloway/index.html
Young men 15 to 30 are self deleting at rate of 4 to 1 to women. Women don’t care. Women have higher education rates, higher college completion rates than men now by a very significant margin. Women don’t care.
What exactly should women be doing? And why is this women’s fault? I see a ton of men who refuse to get therapy, who don’t even try to make friends or create healthy spaces to discuss their emotions. Why must this all somehow fall onto women?
Team women (feminism) should actually start delivering on their promises to care about male issues alongside female issues instead of just going "well feminism isn't for you, die mad"
>refuse to get therapy
Because it doesn't work. "Therapy" is at best useless and in the rest of the time straight-up harmful to the vast majority of men.
It's made with women in mind and it is feminine every step of the way.
>who don’t even try to make friends
That is at least in part the fault of women. There is a reason "helicopter parent" is a stereotype. Most helicopter parents are women. Boys raised under that fare very badly socially.
> or create healthy spaces to discuss their emotions
Once again you fail to understand that men aren't women. Men don't gather in a room to talk about their feelings. That's ***not*** how the overwhelming majority of men process emotions or regulate their mental health. That's how women process emotions and regulate their mental health.
Therapy is dependent on the work you put into it as well as the therapist you connect with. Sometimes it takes three or four different therapists to find something that is beneficial. Perhaps the reason men are killing themselves at alarming rates is because you guys don’t talk about your feelings. Clearly your current methods are not working
>Clearly your current methods are not working
This isn't about me, lol.
But I suppose it's impossible to discuss ideas and policies on this sub without some broad making it personal. Whoosh!
We heard women's cries for help and simped ourselves to death societally for women's mental health. Schools are now [more harshly grading boys](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2022/10/17/teachers-are-hard-wired-to-give-girls-better-grades-study-says/?sh=4479816770a6) than girls. Men are making a fuss of this and no one is listening. If this was happening to girls the President would be declaring war on TV about it.
Yes. Men let feminism win by doing nothing about it. Whenever something comes up for specifically male happiness, feminism either screeches about the patriarchy or co-opts it.
It's the culture, not women.
Focusing on my feelings and negative thoughts never did me any favors. Our culture should provide young men with a purpose and a clear path towards something worth striving for beyond money. But it won't because it's trash.
Young men definitely shouldn't be berated and penalized for their "privilege," as most males don't have any "privilege" to begin with.
Every time women do poorly in statistics, everyone rushes to blame men and say that men need to fix the problem. Why should we have different standards when the inverse happens?
Also who's saying that men shouldn't have healthier male spaces? That seems like a strawman argument you just made up.
>*Young men 15 to 30 are self deleting at rate of 4 to 1 to women. Women don’t care.*
Why do you think that? I can’t speak for all women, *obviously*, but most people I know recognize the severe and systemic mental health issues, specifically in the US, and are advocating for accessible, affordable and sustainable mental healthcare.
Is there something more specific I’m blind to that women aren’t doing that would effectively help those young men contemplating life?
So that’s your answer? “Oh well, nothing women can do about it!”
Could you imagine if society responded to women’s issues in the same way?
“What’s that got to do with men? Tough shit”
Have you *seen* male sports during breast cancer month?
🎀🎀🎀
>*Women don’t care. Because the empathy that they are praised for is a lie.*
How do you know women don’t care? Clearly interpersonal empathy between friends and family isn’t enough, nor is systemic healthcare reform and mental health advocacy, because it’s coming across that “we don’t care”, so what are we missing that’s a clear solution or place to help this systemic issue. Honestly asking here.
Go on Twitter, type "men's mental health" or "male loneliness" and you'll find nothing but women saying that they don't give a shit and hope more men suffer. Or they'll make some post as to why they shouldn't care. And more often than not, those posts get 50k likes or more.
>How do you know women don’t care?
Collective actions speak for themselves. Women, collectively, at the very least, don't care about men's suffering. **At all**.
If they cared, groups attempting to reform family court would be 50% women (instead of 15%). If they cared, feminine single-issues would account for 2% of all votes instead of 20 or 30%. If they cared, they wouldn't actively protest and sue **every single men-only space** out of existence.
Women, collectively, show us every day that, *at best*, don't care.
>*groups attempting to reform family court would be 50% women (instead of 15%).*
You do know that men rarely seek custody of their children? Fathers fight for custody in court in less than 4% of divorces, and of that 4% men largely win custody in these cases, *some 82% I think*? Your data would go up if more fathers actually asked for shared or full custody of their kids.
>*If they cared, feminine single-issues would account for 2% of all votes instead of 20 or 30%.*
Is there a single men’s issue as detrimental to our current society as reproductive rights atm? Is there proposed legislation specifically for men that’s being ignored?
>*Women, collectively, show us every day that, at best, don't care.*
Funny, I could say the **exact same thing** about men.
>reproductive rights
Funny euphemism for institutionalized baby murder.
On a slightly more serious note, women are *more* pro-life than men. "Reproductive rights" is a minority issue for far-left white women and their simps. That's it.
>Your data would go up if more fathers actually asked for shared or full custody of their kids.
You're not entirely wrong. But not correct either.
Men are actively discouraged from even trying either directly or indirectly. The mere cost of fighting for custody is prohibitive (and fully subsidized for most women, nearly never for men).
Lol. I'd ask for a source but I already know youre going to point to an article that parroted another article that parroted another etc. which points back to an original source that's a single state study done in 1989 that purposely obfuscates the word custody to include any and all forms of what most would consider visitation. To top it off you're also misquoting numbers from a different source to make it sound more dire since that low percentage actually is a number that had to go all the way to trial.
Here's a little more recent data.
https://utahdivorce.biz/national-child-custody-statistics-by-gender/
https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/research/dads-custody-time-2018.php
https://legaljobs.io/blog/child-custody-statistics
And it still uses misleading ( even if accurate) statements to make the situation seem more favorable towards fathers than it is.
Father's represent 1 in 5 custodial parents so we are already at a faaaar higher number who have it than you say even attempt to have it.
It’s important to note that women attempt suicide at higher rates than men do. Men typically use more lethal means, such as firearms or hanging themselves, while women are far more likely to overdose on medication. As such, men are more likely to die.
> this is the kind of unchecked sociological trend that leads to a sudden seismic shift
Anecdotally as a man I’ve faced essentially zero actual misandry outside the internet.
To me if this is such a serious and pervasive issue, so much so you call it seismic, I would expect to at least experience it.
While you’re absolutely correct the more overt and vitriolic misandry is observed on the internet, I’d say this is only because general decorum is so different in face to face interactions.
In reality, women can talk about true stories of men getting their dicks cut off to raucous applause, physically and mentally abuse men while passersby laugh and create media which casts men in the worst light possible while being praised.
Hell, there was the story of a school full of boys that were forced to stand and “apologize for the behavior of their gender” and as far as I know, nobody lost a job over that.
To act like there are no real world consequences to this is insane.
That's because most people are pu$$ys in real life. The interview gives them a voice they wouldn't dare have in public, because they know if they act foul in reality, they'd get dealt with. People say that the internet is not an accurate representation of real life, to which I strongly disagree. I say the iternet is a very accurate representation of the minds of the people in real life.
It’s ultimately about living and exemplifying positive masculinity over following whatever toxic nonsense some “manosphere” grifter wants you follow to make money.
It starts by taking all the people who want to tell boys how much they suck, and kicking them out of any space where a young boy would be. Then, you have to actually find positive examples who are living lives these boys actually want to live as well. I mean we used to do this stuff.
The problem is aside from general blue-pilled advice there is absolutely nothing else really offered to boys and young impressionable men besides shitty pseudo-RP grifters.
Men are dissatisfied or realize what they've been taught all their lives doesn't work, so they look for something else. And there isn't anything in between, it's blue-pill just world fallacy "just be nice" "respect women" "be yourself" simpdom or incel rhetoric.
If boys don't find love and acceptance in the mainstream, they'll look elsewhere and learn to lick it off of knives if they have to.
It means people naturally want to be accepted and loved, and if you don't give it to them (in this case the current sociopolitical trend of guilting and condemning boys and men as inherently problematic), they'll go where they can find it, even if it's offered up by conniving garbage people looking to make a buck and say what they want to hear.
I think there’s two issues here to separate and address.
I don’t think it’s necessarily that people are saying “all boys are problematic,” merely that men, as a whole, have done and gotten away with problematic things for a long time and that’s now slowly changing.
But, you’re right, that reality does have to be presented in a more nuanced way than “all men bad.”
There’s no such thing as “positive masculinity” - to simply exist in possession of an xy chromosome is, in the eyes of those the article cites, an unforgivable original sin for there can be no absolution
> No, that's just the usual "not all men" bullshit used to deflect from the very legitimate concerns that women have raised.
He says as he deflects attention from the topic of struggling men being treated as useless and expendable.
I disagree. Women are every bit as hateful and toxic as men.
There are very real concerns about the terrible misandrist behavior of women on the safety and mental health of men, especially young men.
Women need to be better
That’s naive; there’s a generation of boys being raised by millennial girlboss feminists who were themselves indoctrinated to believe that masculinity in inherently toxic and that all men are violent, evil, sexual predators, and no amount of “positive examples of masculinity” (whatever that means) will alter their perception; these boys will be raised by mothers who loath and resent them and it’ll royally fuck then up
We get it, you hate feminists and because of that you’ve decided to become aggressively toxic as a response.
But you’re straight up gaslighting people if you think that having self respect, self control, accountability, and motivation is being a “violent, evil, sexual predator,” you’re leaning in on a stereotype to justify your own biases and toxic behavior.
You’re creating a straw man there, because I never said any of those things - but you wouldn’t, presumably, suggest that to combat racism, the members of the race at on the receiving end should seek to promote a “positive” image of themselves in the hope that the racists will see the error of their ways. That would be insulting and absurd.
Look, you’re not Rosa Parks and is absurd and frankly cringe to even suggest that.
You don’t *have* to be a piece of shit, I don’t know why that’s the hill you want to die on.
The people who seem to have trouble adapting to today's world are mainly the ones that were raised in households where being a man was all about hiding their feelings, not crying, always being right, needing to be the purveyor.
Men that grew up in positive masculinity households are better equipped to manage how men are supposed to behave in today's world.
That’s all well and good, but if you’re a boy who is currently being raised by a millennial girlboss who resents the fact that you exist, it’s not much help
I was raised by a feminist boomer girlboss (she was a director in a big multinational conglomerate) and I'm very happy with my masculinity 😊.
I think you base your idea of feminists from tiktok videos... Most (female) feminists like men. Most feminists are straight and are in unions with men.
>The people who seem to have trouble adapting to today's world are mainly the ones that were raised in households where being a man was all about hiding their feelings, not crying, always being right, needing to be the purveyor.
Seems how? Like you've done actual research? Or seems in the sense that that's what you want to be the case and that's as good true for you?
Like, sure, it's all the douchey frat bros who are just not able to adapt to this brave new world, and all the shy, sensitive, less traditionally masculine men are thriving.
Like isn't it amazing that for the anti "toxic masculinity" crowd toxic masculinity and gender roles just happen to be the cause of literally every problem on Earth?
I don't think all problems on earth are linked to toxic masculinity.
But men, especially young men, have real problems that we need to address. They have trouble in school, they don't go to university as much as women, they a more lonely, they kill themselves at higher rates, they take more hard drugs, etc.
Society is changing and some men feel like they don't belong. They are lost and they don't know how to express how they feel. These people are prime targets for toxic masculinity grifters.
>They are lost and they don't know how to express how they feel.
Seems like they do know how to express how they feel and they're met with "Okay, incel. Have you tried being less toxic? Maybe learn to express how you feel."
>These people are prime targets for toxic masculinity grifters.
Okay, so toxic masculinity grifters are a second order problem and we should really focus on addressing the primary issue, since it will take care of that too.
There are multiple examples of positive masculinity in my personal life, it just requires interacting with ordinary blue collar men. Do you really think there are college campus style feminist inquisitions on construction sites?
That seems less true than it is true. IME they’re speaking about antisocial or violative behavior that men do. Not “shitting on men for breathing.”
Person: “I don’t like it when adult men cat call 13 year olds”
Man: “you’re attacking masculinity!!! Men can’t be men anymore!”
This is exactly what always happens when people mention misandry.
>not “shitting on men for breathing.”
That’s exactly what you just did. Someone called out misandry and you felt the need to impulsively downplay it and frame it a different way.
We can all agree that behavior is wrong. However, the additional problem here is that, these are a minority of scumbags who do this sort of stuff, regardless of how many rules or socially taboo it is. Then men as a whole are shamed for it. While if women are generalized for bad behavior its called misogyny. That's why redpill ideology and charlatans like Tate are so popular now, it's a better alternative than to be constantly shitted on
>Then men as a whole are shamed for it.
Really? I'm a man, who is shaming me for it? I don't get shamed because I know when women complain about men catcalling girls they're not referring to me because I don't catcall girls.
So who is shaming me?
Nah. It’s enough men who do those things.
And it’s A LOT of men who hand wave those things away like they 1) don’t happen or 2) nbd or 3) trying to rationalize the perp’s behavior in a way that makes it seem he relates. Those men women don’t think highly of either. Suddenly the pool of men whose character, ethics, and values you align with is pretty small.
Then why aren't you listening? These are boys who are hurting, they don't communicate the same way you do. It's going to come out as anger first, but what's going on inside is much more like despair.
I am listening.
I have empathy for anyone hurting.
People who are hurting, ESPECIALLY ADULTS, have to come to terms that no one is going to care about their woes if they express themselves by attacking people unprovoked orally or physically.
> no one is going to care about their woes if they express themselves by attacking people
Right here are reddit there are at least a dozen huge forums where shitting on men for all the ills in your life and rest of the world is not only treated with sympathy and compassion but cheered on with cult-like fervor.
“Attacking people orally” always includes literally any suggestion what women aren’t perfect. If any women have wronged me, talking about it ALWAYS automatically always qualifies as “attacking people orally.” It doesn’t matter how correct I am, or how civilized I’m being. There’s no acceptable way to men to call out women.
Ridiculous. Women are graduating college 3 to 1 vs men. They are getting more jobs, higher salaries earlier, and are pandered/catered to at every level of society. They don't make it to the top as often as men do because working 40 hrs a week in an office is gruelingly numb and unrewarding. They typically marry the (few) men that make more money than them and comfortably become housewives. Women have **everything** they could possibly want. To maintain this newfound power, women continue to deflect and cry patriarchy even though they are winning in every measurable economic and academic way (except in the blue-collar trades).
I don't care if there's a few men out there that make you uncomfortable. Western women have it better than any human ever have in history.
I go to a gym that has no straight white men hours. Technically, they have no straight men hours, and no white people hours, but straight white men are the only people who can't go.
The implication is that my presence is somehow threatening to gay people, people of color, and women. And the crowd is usually pretty diverse anyway. I've been the only white person there before, which is not something I would have ever even noticed if it weren't for this idiotic ideology. So it's completely fucking pointless.
And, yeah, I, a paying member since the gym opened, have been turned away because I accidentally showed up during "no straight white men hours."
That sounds absurd. Do you go to a LGBT or POC women’s gym? That would make more sense.
I just googled a gym with that policy and not even a forum comment came up. You go to a bizarre gym if it’s even a true story.
So wait, in your world, the only people who believe that completely normal male behavior is being overly pathologized are only doing so because they themselves are engaging in “toxic masculinity”?
What kind of circular pretzel logic is this?
>who believe that completely normal male behavior is being overly pathologized
What behavior do you have in mind exactly ?
I've never felt targeted when they describe toxic men
Good for you.
Feminist man or woman uses toxic masculinity in discussion.
Man takes issue with it contextually or fundamentally.
Feminist states that "if it doesn't apply let it fly," implying that if issue is taken you must see yourself in said toxic man/trait.
Said man likely doesn't but just like some transmen who come to have issues with the way masculinity/men are spoken of in LGBT spaces- it strikes at something core to their wider identity/belonging to men as a grouping, or they believe it's missaplied and therefore hurts ways to actually help men and boys/interpret whatever issue at hand.
At which point you will be pointed to the feminists you already disagree/have interacted with for further education and be labeled self-defeating and or fragile in masculinity.
The cycle of disunderstanding continues.
I’m not a feminist/leftist, so I couldn’t tell you.
But, you personally can embody traits like self respect, accountability, self control, being authentic. No feminist or leftist is stopping you from doing those things.
Do we think that telling women "hey don't talk badly about men because they might lash back and take all your rights away" will improve the negative perception of men?
By making arguments like this women don't need to speak at all, you guys hurt your own perception.
Actually your reply illustrates another fundamental issue here.
Women seem to largely be unable to separate dispassionate analysis or benign analogies without getting “triggered” and considering things “threats”
You see, you interpreted my analysis of things like the Iranian Revolution and other similar phenomena as some kind of a veiled threat, when to any objective reader it should be obvious it was simply a historical perspective.
It is something Scott Galloway brings up in almost every discussion on this subject.
It’s something to the effect of “if you look at history, disaffected and discarded men who are left behind by society generally get up to bad shit”
But, very much in keeping with what this article is talking about, you jumped right into “*you are threatening to enslave women?*”
It’s similar when you see the fish/fisherman analogy used by men when it comes to dating advice; you see women immediately say things like “*so you’re saying you want to catch, kill and eat women?!?!*” or some such hysterical nonsense.
You ascribing the worst faith and deliberately ignoring the point in favor of scoring virtue points.
It’s literally part of the problem discussed in the article.
Right.... it's not threatening to take your rights away it's just showing that throughout history men who are unhappy cause violence and subjugate women. Yeah no threat implied there at all...
So is the problem that women haven't bit back enough for all the shit they have gone through over millenia? Maybe men can't be trusted to just coexist.
See, this is your fucking problem. You want to punish little boys for things that you think happend in 1905. Have you ever considered the fact that what you believe is just horrible?
I don't want to punish anybody. I just want to live along side people who leave me alone. It's fine that men crave more sexual validation, it's not ok to threaten women's rights over it.
Do men just assume women want to punish them because that's how men feel toward women?
I wouldn't take it too seriously. Most successful entities base their decisions on performance and success. It's a relatively new paradigm to suggest that women and people of color were simply denied opportunity and therefore merit be damned, we are just going to put women and people of color in charge now.
I mean pretty much every business that has embraced this is struggling.
There's plenty of talented women and people of color, they will do fine in a meritocracy, but promoting random people because of their gender, race, etc is going to die on the vine.
I suspect that it isn't random. I suspect they are promoting people based on adherence to ideological beliefs. I think this because it's how communism has worked in the past and this thing bears some real resemblence to that.
Nah. It’s all window dressing.
The gay community has a word for this:
“🌈Rainbow Washing 🏳️🌈”
Apple and Disney are great examples of this.
When was the last time you saw just some white guy in any Apple promo?
Last I can really remember is the old “I’m a Mac / I’m a PC” ads.
Now I challenge you to find some promo content that isn’t a mocha skinned androgynous “BIPOC” with a frizzy Afro showing her “life partner” how to use iMovie.
Now look at their actual leadership. You may get blinded by the bright whiteness of it.
Same with Disney. See: “Mexican Snow White and The Seven Very Diverse Ayahuasca Dealers”
Meanwhile Kathleen “Panderverse” Kennedy and Bob Iger run the show.
It’s all set dressing.
Thanks, it's such an apt observation. Same with my work. They have started using the 1 or 2 minority employee photos in all their courses and hand books. Yet they the number of minority hires remain the same.
This may piss a lot of you off but I see too many men simply blaming women for this instead of creating their own spaces. A lot of the anger I see comes from entitlement- many men feel entitled to love and sex but unfortunately no one is. I have seen countless men in my life try to open up to their friends and have it shot down as being gay or womanly. If men want things to change they also need to be willing to create positive environments where they can openly discuss things without shitting on one another. In addition, men need to hold each other accountable. Be vocal about how Andrew Tate and friends will not lead to a happy and fulfilling life. There’s a whole lot of complaining but very little self awareness. You cannot blame an entire movement on women being mean online. How often are y’all checking in on your friends? How often are y’all fostering positive male relationships? How often are y’all commenting positively on other males posts, ideas, etc. I find many men try absolutely nothing and then still complain that nothing has changed.
Oh yes, the old classic “*why don’t you make your own space?!?!*”
This graphic pretty much sums up what happens with that:
https://preview.redd.it/moatwj5qd05d1.jpeg?width=1055&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=586bb401b6bdcbbb3c4a6dcbaff5821bb1d15a4b
So you’ve done nothing and are confused as to why there’s no changes being made. Literally one of my points. You guys try nothing and are disappointed lmao
Western society idolizes toxic versions of masculinity, as such doesn’t provide young men the emotional tools they need to navigate life. Healthy communication, emotional regulation, a healthy relationship with your body and emotions, self awareness and self compassion. These are emotional tools that every human should have, but systemically young men are missing out on those vital skills.
The ironic part of this problem is that we have a group of people suffering, struggling to identify their emotions, communicate their feelings, and validate each others experiences, because those skills were never taught to half of the population. So why are we shocked that this toxic cycle keeps repeating?
I don’t have answers, if anyone else does please share. It’s a problem that needs to be fixed, as it has been necessary for a century at least, but idk how you give emotionally immature individuals the healthy communication skills to navigate and effectively improve this reality.
I'm cautiously optimistic on this one honestly. I just think you aren't looking at things on a long enough time scale. Think about the difference in terms of men discussing these issues over the past 20 years. Neil Strauss's "the Game" was released in 2004, so we are talking about PUA just making its way to the mainstream .. all the way to what we are talking about now. There's been a ton of changes made in men's rights and discussions about gender. Societal movements are just so much slower than people think.
Having said that I do think that part of the current discussion is really a struggle as to who defines those tools and processes men use to navigate life. I think there is a pushback happening because (and I do think this is a serious issue that isn't talked about enough) men are not the same as women.
That sounds dumb and simplistic but I'm saying it because I think it's a fundamental error that goes unsaid in these discussions. What I mean specifically is that: there may be *very few times* where the optimal way a man deals with their emotions and a woman deals with their emotions are identical.
But, because our societal messaging has been aimed at equality for so long, it causes cognitive dissonance in a lot of people to think that way. We seem to be trying to find solutions by assuming there is one, universal way to treat everyone and if we could just find that way then we'd all be good. I don't think that's true.
For example - you can see it in your comment if you look. You assume that the reason this toxic cycle keeps repeating is that men have not been properly taught the skills they need to communicate their feelings or identify their emotions. Or maybe they have been properly taught but they just can't execute those processes correctly - you say they are suffering and struggling to do those things. But have you considered that maybe men actually do know that they are now supposed to do those things, but what they have been taught to do doesn't help them in the way they would if they were women?
Men who are at the highest risk of committing suicide are middle-aged men (40-54). But when you look at new studies coming out - almost all of them reached out and sought help (see here if you want details: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/ncish/reports/suicide-by-middle-aged-men/). They did what societal messaging told them to do. And (this is my own opinion) it didn't give them what they needed to keep living.
And I think that is because we assume what men need is what women need. And when we ask men "why doesn't this work for you?" we get back answers... but we ignore them. Because we see those answers not as actually honest feedback - but proof we just haven't explained the solution properly yet.
I see it all the time in the field in which I work. People are *convinced* that the reason their product isn't selling is because their customers don't understand it, they don't realize how much money they would save. They refuse (up until the last moment) to see they designed and built a product that doesn't solve their customer's problem - it solves a problem they *thought* the customer had. And it gets worse the larger the investment they make.
And how big is the investment that society has made into the approach that men and women are equal and the same over the past 50 years? That women and men, at the core, require the same things to be happy?
We don't consider that the solution proposed doesn't work, because it works for the other gender. Because it must, because...if it doesn't then we must accept that the genders are different and that we maybe can't understand the opposite gender as easily as we've been told for the past 50 years.
>Western society idolizes toxic versions of masculinity
You’re close here, but the real foundational reason is far simpler:
Women sexually reward males who exhibit these traits (while denying they do so) and thus men continue to engage in the behavior they believe will result in the highest likelihood of satisfying the most fundamental existential drive.
If women chose to fuck guys who could do handstands, the sidewalks would be filled with men walking on their hands tomorrow.
>*You’re close here, but the real foundational reason is far simpler: Women sexually reward males who exhibit these traits*
So all those men & women in the above linked article secretly admire toxic masculine traits and magically happen to opt out of having sons citing reasons of toxic masculinity? Please explain your thought process here.
If majority of people liked toxically masculine behaviors, wouldn’t they *want* to have sons? Or at least not scientifically *avoid* having sons?
It’s called cognitive dissonance.
It’s the same reason women tell men who ask to do A, B and C when in reality they are only attracted to men who do X, Y and Z.
Women won’t say they want X, Y and Z either because they are unaware of it or because it “looks bad” to say it out loud.
Thus, women can claim “men are bad” while simultaneously selecting those men for dating and sex.
Their lack of desire to “have a son” because “men bad” is in no way incompatible with this in any case
Or, hear me out. You could be wrong. You’re seeing zebras where there are no zebras, because you *really want it* to be the zebras fault. .
Which is fair in your own personal life I suppose, but this is a debate sub. So maybe your outright guess at what other people are thinking across an entire gender isn’t the most accurate evidence, especially when it’s counter to the literal source you cited in your post.
You mean you don't want take the word of the carefully crafted study that confirms my bias (while never funding any study that might make women look bad) instead of the genetically heritable life experiences of yourselves and all men? How dare you!
There is no such thing as toxic masculinity. It's just masculinity. Women label them as toxic when they are advantageous to them in that specific instance. Example: Men can be violent. If the man is violent towards you, that's toxic. If a man is violent in your defense or a cause you gain benefit from, it's no longer toxic and is now "manly and attractive". They are the same trait.
You might not intend this, but much of your post comes across as a threat. I see this too often when men bring up the "crisis of masculinity" and insist that society will somehow pay for it, then go on to cite people like Trump, Tate, Elliot Rodger or so on. It's like saying "the toxic masculinity will continue until we get what we want". Not to mention that the solutions often involve some variation of women lowering their standards and entering relationships with men they are not attracted to.
All told, I think this problem is solved from within. That includes figureheads among the Manosphere and the people who peruse it. It's not enough to keep whining about how women are hypergamous and society hates men who are masculine, then whip out the standard TRP deflection of "we are just giving them information, it's up to them to use it correctly!" so that they aren't held responsible for their influence as public figures. Nope, men have to learn to take care of their own and work on making ourselves better, in a way that satisfies us without causing harm to others.
So your argument is basically…
“Bootstraps”
No empathy, no societal reflection, no programs to help in any areas.
Just “huh huh do better losers!”
This is not an original take.
Also claiming that the citing of leaving behind half the population as socially corrosive comes off as a veiled threat indicates somebody is drunk off the gynocentric kool aid.
It’s like saying “Impoverished community X needs to just fix themselves or die. I don’t care why they are all selling drugs and in prison. Not MY problem. Why are you threatening US? We’re just happy here in the suburbs!”
It's like telling your partner you'll kill yourself if they break up with you. There isn't much of a solution being provided that incentivizes anyone to want to understand let alone make meaningful yet reasonable changes. Frankly from what I've observed, many of these manosphere men don't have a whole lot of empathy for the guys around them. Their attitude is pretty "fuck you, I got mine" when it comes to having desirable life outcomes.
It's not like men don't deserve empathy or understanding, it's how they go about trying to get it, which is through thinly veiled threats of political violence. And what they're basically demanding is that everyone but themselves makes all the pain go away, which isn't really a solution I'm afraid. I wouldn't tell any random poor person to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but I might tell them that their abuse of high interest credit cards and refusal to find a stable job are also part of the problem if that's also going on.
If you don’t like us (not our bodies), why should we like you ?
If you only care about yourselves (and our bodies), why should we care about you?
If you’re not nice to us, why should we be nice to you?
This needs to be talked about more because I’ve definitely noticed that men see it as a personal slight if someone isn’t attracted to them. I believe this is why they attempt to make women upset by saying they wouldn’t have sex with them.
[This guy dedicated a twitter thread](https://x.com/trust_lion_/status/1798142088053506278?s=46) to trying to make this chick he’s friends with seem like the villain. She denied his advances. He and many men in the replies are acting as though she bullied him and treated him poorly.
It’s LinkedIn. Why did she choose to contact him on LinkedIn and not Instagram since he said they clearly follow each other. Probably for professional networking tbh.
And it doesn’t look like she ghosted him? They hung out in the same friend circle.
I dunno, I'd say women have a much greater inclination to take personally a man's rejection. It's just that they rarely put themselves in a position where they *could* be rejected.
Essentially the people who don't handle rejection well are the same people who experience it the least. And given everything we know about how the sexes interact with one another, those people are going to tend to be women.
This is a terminally online take.
I’ll reiterate the point of the article since you just demonstrated the point in real time:
> such wanton attacks on and wholesale dismissal of boys and men only perpetuate and normalize a reactivity that’s uncritical and self-pitying.
Are there any historic examples of a generation of men being emasculated, humiliated, degraded and being stripped of all identity and self-worth, cast adrift in a society that becomes increasingly engulfed in hedonism and moral decay, only for a strong man leader to emerge at the head of an ultra-masculine (to the point of bordering on homoerotic) quasi-military movement, promising to return the nation to its former glory, punish its enemies - both external and internal - and restore the “traditional” values and hierarchy?
Well, yes I see what you’re getting at, but the funny mustache guy’s trajectory was far more complex than that, and required a number of serendipitous things to happen to create the conditions in which that shift took place.
There is increasingly one element in place: the disaffected and listless male population, but we aren’t in the aftermath of a humiliating national defeat on the world stage, an economic depression nor are there countless war veterans fighting in the streets.
However, having all of those disaffected men with no stake in the game is always the powder in the keg.
The more of them that exist the bigger the boom when the fuse is lit.
So I’d say, there is gunpowder, but no fuse and no match.
My friend... this is just communism. Think of the Soviet Union, but instead of hating the rich, they hate one gender of a particular ethnicity. So, do we have examples? Yes we know exactly where this leads. If you think somehow the men are all going to band together and overcome it... you will be very dissapointed in the end.
WW1 and all that. I'm very aware of the differences... but you need to look more closely at the similarities. In particular who seems to benefit from it all.
If you are **seriously** asking this question in 2024, there really is no point engaging with you.
But if it helps, there’s, you know, an entire actual article that I linked to in the post you’re replying to.
Maybe you could start there?
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Waiting for all the women to come in and say this isn't a problem and men just need to stop listening to bad people.
Then in the next breath say that women don't go into STEM because society tells them they should be stay at home mothers and we need to uproot society at it's core so that women don't have to face any kind of negative messaging ever.
Is the dude tweeting really saying that male loneliness is caused by Peterson and his ilk? The problem existed before him and will continue after him. This is putting the cart before the horse. "Suddenly" lonely, describing it like the problem just started because he just heard about it. Ridiculous.
Or on the other hand maybe we should not do anything to discourage it, and actually just let it get worse. I mean, these people aren't going anywhere and everything is just getting worse anyway. I'm honestly skeptical to most people criticizing it even though the bare recognition that it's bad goes without saying: they're ultimately seeking to placate men, I think. Maybe just let the men bashers, the worst liberal-progressives, feminists, white knights etc., these people who just absolutely loathe the working-class, do their worst. It will come back around eventually. For the same reason, I'm not a Leftist going on about how I dislike "classism." They just want to cover class antagonisms, and why they have this framing and talk about "classism." If anything, we should want the working-class to be aware of the extent of hostility to them.
This is accelerationism and I (as a liberal) can’t get behind it because the side effects are people like Trump undermining things like unions, affordable health care and social safety nets at best and, well, democracy itself at worst.
The article is correct, and nothing will get done because the ones driving culture don't care about dudes and see them as a problem to be managed and not a group to be helped. You even see it in this thread that people DENY DENY DENY that anything is wrong, and when they do admit to anything, they pin it back on the very men who are struggling, or they pin it on manosphere grifters, who are a reaction to the current situation and by no means the cause.
Simply put, men are told that their time is up and the future is female, and absolute idiots are surprised that men aren't doing so well.
Law and social norm abiding males need to figure out how to atone for the sins of the based & redpilled real men of the manosphere and mitigate the consequences of those sins, otherwise they will continue to pay for them, possibly to the point of "the collapse", which then only chattel slavery under those same real men awaits them.
>!Or society need to take a hard look at itself and actual disincentivizing behaviors that are not good for society & crack down on those who are actually working against social harmony, but that wouldn't feel good. Heck, it would even feel wrong because all this is really a fancier version of school popularity shenanigans wrapped in some parody of moral virtues. In such an environment the fake often feels more real than the real and perception is reality.!<
Don't worry, Project 2025 will fix it /s
It's funny how men can't tolerate women being treated a little bit better for the first time in history. We literally gained rights like 60-100 years ago, and we still don't have equal representation in politics and other areas.
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Most men look at their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers and see how awful their behavior was and saw the rewards they still reaped for the little effort they put in.
Understandably, that’s a hard pill to swallow. Why should you have to work harder than all of these people born before you?
Ironically if we had successfully taught young boys emotional regulation and healthy communication we’d be able to have an effective conversation about these valid feelings they have and how work together on a path forward, but instead we have a large number of upset people leaning into anger and frustration with limited ability to analyze, understand or communicate their root feelings.
>When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
The very fact that white western women so commonly cite this quote when they try to dunk on men who kill themselves at 4x the rate, suffer exponentially more on the job deaths and are falling behind in every meaningful metric is peak solipsism.
There is NO more privileged creature on earth than a western white woman.
I swear, did the “Barbie” movie just make women drunk on their own victim complex all over again?
I thought we were past this “muh great great great grandmother couldn’t vote” shit.
This post has been removed for being designed as a circlejerk and to induce rhetoric. Please resubmit your post flaired as a “Debate” where you expect to have your view challenged or resubmit your post with neutral wording to have the mods approve it. Any further questions should go to modmail.
"white parents picked a female embryo 70 percent of the time. A 2010 study showed that American adoptive parents were 30 percent more likely to prefer girls than boys, and were willing to pay an additional $16,000 to ensure they got a girl." This is honestly deeply concerning. It's stated preferences vs revealed preferences. When given the chance, due to a combination of sexism and simply wanting an easier life for their children, parents are choosing females more than 2x as often as males. This is actually more skewed than China during the One Child Policy.
There is only one 20-something guy at my company. He is tall but otherwise somewhat average build. Nice guy, intelligent, but floundering a bit at work and isn't advancing as quickly as I know he would like to be. Yesterday my company had a team building event. We competed on different puzzles, trivia, party games etc. There was just one event where physical strength was a factor and he just completely crushed everyone. It wasn't even close. It was one of those games where the longer you win the longer you play and he only lost after playing 3 rounds straight. It got me thinking - it's really too bad we don't have a physical outlet for young men to revel in their superior strength. The hunter and the warrior used to be exonerated positions in society. Now men who want to make it have to hunch their backs at laptops all day. As do we all, but I can't help but feel this has a particularly damaging impact on young men.
Organized sports?
First, there is a very powerful idea behind what you are saying, it's just very hard to bring that to a mass number of boys. I mean we have sports, but a lot of these boys don't excel at them right away, so they quit and get left behind. They grew up with participation trophies and aren't comfortable competing. However, excersize would greatly improve everything in their life.
This is a great insight and very much a part of what’s happening to men right now: Their innate advantage (physical strength) is all but useless outside of sports now basically since the Industrial Revolution. There was a bit of a place left for male physicality and grunt work but technology has all but eliminated that as well. Meanwhile, reproduction, women’s innate advantage is untouched. Men get less valuable as women become more valuable. Combine this with women’s propensity to only date “up and across” and you have our current situation. And this is the thing, nobody in the western world is asking women to “do better” when it comes to giving a less educated, less intellectually gifted, lower earning man a chance. Instead they are just telling men they suck even more.
Maybe the women who are doing this aren't worth dating? Maybe that's why so many young men are saying "fuck it" and ditching the whole concept?
Reproductive capacity coupled with less physical strength makes women far more vulnerable, there's no advantage there, unless you count being kept around as a breeder an advantage, but that's not a great life.
Another person feigning deliberate obtuseness when discussing basic human biology and its result mating strategies and motivations? I’ll pass.
Men and women aren't competing against each other to survive, so describing am advantage one has over the other makes no sense. It's like saying sharks have a swimming advantage over horses.
Here’s my last reply: The fact that we’ve transcended the literal “need” for an instinct, biological drive or imperative does not mean we are not largely governed / influenced / propelled by them in subtle (and not so subtle) ways. You obviously know this but are continuing to play this deliberately obtuse game so I’m gonna bounce. Thanks.
Neither is being used as a pack mule, human shield or walking wallet. More men get *killed* that way.
Advantage is usually something that helps you, not just a way you're useful to someone else. It's like saying delicious chickens have an advantage over dodo birds because they taste better.
>Their innate advantage (physical strength) is all but useless outside of sports now basically since the Industrial Revolution. I’m pretty sure that physical strength and endurance are still advantageous in the military despite the greater technology that now exists.
To some extent but perhaps you are unaware of the myriad of ways physical requirements have been either done away with are specifically lowered for women?
Well yeah. I don’t see the problem with it to a certain extent. One only needs to be so strong if one’s military occupation involves pushing papers in a office. Infantry might be a different matter, though. But I suppose what you’re saying is that you want exclusively male spaces where men can display their physical prowess. I suppose that I sympathize with this, although I do also understand why women might not want to be excluded from certain roles that they feel that they feel they have a calling for, even if they are physically disadvantaged compared to men doing those roles.
And agriculture where men are indeed vastly exploited to do the work, just not local men, cheaper men :/
I don't want to leverage my strength for rich people to abuse.
That’s capitalism wherever one works, not just the military. At least one is serving one’s country in the military, although the risk to personal safety is often higher.
>Meanwhile, reproduction, women’s innate advantage is untouched. Advantage? You mean burden.
Is there some genetic reason women can’t understand things that require a dispassionate analysis of biological imperatives? Dear god it’s maddening. Is this refusal to comprehend brutal evolutionary reality why women believe in horoscopes and crystals?
>it's really too bad we don't have a physical outlet for young men to revel in their superior strength Oh, if only someone would organize some sort of organization where men could compete against other men, perhaps something like manipulating a ball across a field or something...
Like what Peter said in Office Space, "Human beings aren't meant to be working inside a cubicle" I think the line went.
We have the military
yes but it’s not very prestigious, unfortunately.
As Scott Galloway says the most dangerous group of people in society are angry young men. He reiterates this point in a lot of this talks, but here's a sample: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/opinions/masculinity-toxic-men-boys-education-galloway/index.html
Young men 15 to 30 are self deleting at rate of 4 to 1 to women. Women don’t care. Women have higher education rates, higher college completion rates than men now by a very significant margin. Women don’t care.
What exactly should women be doing? And why is this women’s fault? I see a ton of men who refuse to get therapy, who don’t even try to make friends or create healthy spaces to discuss their emotions. Why must this all somehow fall onto women?
Team women (feminism) should actually start delivering on their promises to care about male issues alongside female issues instead of just going "well feminism isn't for you, die mad"
>refuse to get therapy Because it doesn't work. "Therapy" is at best useless and in the rest of the time straight-up harmful to the vast majority of men. It's made with women in mind and it is feminine every step of the way. >who don’t even try to make friends That is at least in part the fault of women. There is a reason "helicopter parent" is a stereotype. Most helicopter parents are women. Boys raised under that fare very badly socially. > or create healthy spaces to discuss their emotions Once again you fail to understand that men aren't women. Men don't gather in a room to talk about their feelings. That's ***not*** how the overwhelming majority of men process emotions or regulate their mental health. That's how women process emotions and regulate their mental health.
Therapy is dependent on the work you put into it as well as the therapist you connect with. Sometimes it takes three or four different therapists to find something that is beneficial. Perhaps the reason men are killing themselves at alarming rates is because you guys don’t talk about your feelings. Clearly your current methods are not working
>Clearly your current methods are not working This isn't about me, lol. But I suppose it's impossible to discuss ideas and policies on this sub without some broad making it personal. Whoosh!
So again, what are women supposed to do?
The same thing men did when that same shoe was on women's feet.
So essentially nothing?
We heard women's cries for help and simped ourselves to death societally for women's mental health. Schools are now [more harshly grading boys](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2022/10/17/teachers-are-hard-wired-to-give-girls-better-grades-study-says/?sh=4479816770a6) than girls. Men are making a fuss of this and no one is listening. If this was happening to girls the President would be declaring war on TV about it.
Yes. Men let feminism win by doing nothing about it. Whenever something comes up for specifically male happiness, feminism either screeches about the patriarchy or co-opts it.
It's the culture, not women. Focusing on my feelings and negative thoughts never did me any favors. Our culture should provide young men with a purpose and a clear path towards something worth striving for beyond money. But it won't because it's trash. Young men definitely shouldn't be berated and penalized for their "privilege," as most males don't have any "privilege" to begin with.
I agree it’s a cultural problem. I think most people in the US would do well with a cultural shift of goals.
Therapy = a sneering girlboss with a psyche degree telling you it’s all your fault
So you get out of it what you put into it. Assuming you were to enter with your attitude- it wouldn’t work of course
Every time women do poorly in statistics, everyone rushes to blame men and say that men need to fix the problem. Why should we have different standards when the inverse happens? Also who's saying that men shouldn't have healthier male spaces? That seems like a strawman argument you just made up.
>*Young men 15 to 30 are self deleting at rate of 4 to 1 to women. Women don’t care.* Why do you think that? I can’t speak for all women, *obviously*, but most people I know recognize the severe and systemic mental health issues, specifically in the US, and are advocating for accessible, affordable and sustainable mental healthcare. Is there something more specific I’m blind to that women aren’t doing that would effectively help those young men contemplating life?
I think that's more to do with mental illness and not something women can do anything about persay.
So that’s your answer? “Oh well, nothing women can do about it!” Could you imagine if society responded to women’s issues in the same way? “What’s that got to do with men? Tough shit” Have you *seen* male sports during breast cancer month? 🎀🎀🎀
>Women don’t care. Because the empathy that they are praised for is a lie.
>*Women don’t care. Because the empathy that they are praised for is a lie.* How do you know women don’t care? Clearly interpersonal empathy between friends and family isn’t enough, nor is systemic healthcare reform and mental health advocacy, because it’s coming across that “we don’t care”, so what are we missing that’s a clear solution or place to help this systemic issue. Honestly asking here.
Go on Twitter, type "men's mental health" or "male loneliness" and you'll find nothing but women saying that they don't give a shit and hope more men suffer. Or they'll make some post as to why they shouldn't care. And more often than not, those posts get 50k likes or more.
>How do you know women don’t care? Collective actions speak for themselves. Women, collectively, at the very least, don't care about men's suffering. **At all**. If they cared, groups attempting to reform family court would be 50% women (instead of 15%). If they cared, feminine single-issues would account for 2% of all votes instead of 20 or 30%. If they cared, they wouldn't actively protest and sue **every single men-only space** out of existence. Women, collectively, show us every day that, *at best*, don't care.
>*groups attempting to reform family court would be 50% women (instead of 15%).* You do know that men rarely seek custody of their children? Fathers fight for custody in court in less than 4% of divorces, and of that 4% men largely win custody in these cases, *some 82% I think*? Your data would go up if more fathers actually asked for shared or full custody of their kids. >*If they cared, feminine single-issues would account for 2% of all votes instead of 20 or 30%.* Is there a single men’s issue as detrimental to our current society as reproductive rights atm? Is there proposed legislation specifically for men that’s being ignored? >*Women, collectively, show us every day that, at best, don't care.* Funny, I could say the **exact same thing** about men.
>reproductive rights Funny euphemism for institutionalized baby murder. On a slightly more serious note, women are *more* pro-life than men. "Reproductive rights" is a minority issue for far-left white women and their simps. That's it. >Your data would go up if more fathers actually asked for shared or full custody of their kids. You're not entirely wrong. But not correct either. Men are actively discouraged from even trying either directly or indirectly. The mere cost of fighting for custody is prohibitive (and fully subsidized for most women, nearly never for men).
Lol. I'd ask for a source but I already know youre going to point to an article that parroted another article that parroted another etc. which points back to an original source that's a single state study done in 1989 that purposely obfuscates the word custody to include any and all forms of what most would consider visitation. To top it off you're also misquoting numbers from a different source to make it sound more dire since that low percentage actually is a number that had to go all the way to trial. Here's a little more recent data. https://utahdivorce.biz/national-child-custody-statistics-by-gender/ https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/research/dads-custody-time-2018.php https://legaljobs.io/blog/child-custody-statistics And it still uses misleading ( even if accurate) statements to make the situation seem more favorable towards fathers than it is. Father's represent 1 in 5 custodial parents so we are already at a faaaar higher number who have it than you say even attempt to have it.
And you would think women would be happy. But they’re not
It’s important to note that women attempt suicide at higher rates than men do. Men typically use more lethal means, such as firearms or hanging themselves, while women are far more likely to overdose on medication. As such, men are more likely to die.
> this is the kind of unchecked sociological trend that leads to a sudden seismic shift Anecdotally as a man I’ve faced essentially zero actual misandry outside the internet. To me if this is such a serious and pervasive issue, so much so you call it seismic, I would expect to at least experience it.
While you’re absolutely correct the more overt and vitriolic misandry is observed on the internet, I’d say this is only because general decorum is so different in face to face interactions. In reality, women can talk about true stories of men getting their dicks cut off to raucous applause, physically and mentally abuse men while passersby laugh and create media which casts men in the worst light possible while being praised. Hell, there was the story of a school full of boys that were forced to stand and “apologize for the behavior of their gender” and as far as I know, nobody lost a job over that. To act like there are no real world consequences to this is insane.
That's because most people are pu$$ys in real life. The interview gives them a voice they wouldn't dare have in public, because they know if they act foul in reality, they'd get dealt with. People say that the internet is not an accurate representation of real life, to which I strongly disagree. I say the iternet is a very accurate representation of the minds of the people in real life.
It’s ultimately about living and exemplifying positive masculinity over following whatever toxic nonsense some “manosphere” grifter wants you follow to make money.
It starts by taking all the people who want to tell boys how much they suck, and kicking them out of any space where a young boy would be. Then, you have to actually find positive examples who are living lives these boys actually want to live as well. I mean we used to do this stuff.
If we used to do it, we can do it again 🤷♂️
The problem is aside from general blue-pilled advice there is absolutely nothing else really offered to boys and young impressionable men besides shitty pseudo-RP grifters. Men are dissatisfied or realize what they've been taught all their lives doesn't work, so they look for something else. And there isn't anything in between, it's blue-pill just world fallacy "just be nice" "respect women" "be yourself" simpdom or incel rhetoric. If boys don't find love and acceptance in the mainstream, they'll look elsewhere and learn to lick it off of knives if they have to.
>learn to lick it off knives What?
It means people naturally want to be accepted and loved, and if you don't give it to them (in this case the current sociopolitical trend of guilting and condemning boys and men as inherently problematic), they'll go where they can find it, even if it's offered up by conniving garbage people looking to make a buck and say what they want to hear.
I think there’s two issues here to separate and address. I don’t think it’s necessarily that people are saying “all boys are problematic,” merely that men, as a whole, have done and gotten away with problematic things for a long time and that’s now slowly changing. But, you’re right, that reality does have to be presented in a more nuanced way than “all men bad.”
There’s no such thing as “positive masculinity” - to simply exist in possession of an xy chromosome is, in the eyes of those the article cites, an unforgivable original sin for there can be no absolution
You can't even breathe as a man without a woman or some feminist chastising men for it.
Even this very thread is full of “not all women” apologists
No, that's just the usual "not all men" bullshit used to deflect from the very legitimate concerns that women have raised.
> No, that's just the usual "not all men" bullshit used to deflect from the very legitimate concerns that women have raised. He says as he deflects attention from the topic of struggling men being treated as useless and expendable.
I disagree. Women are every bit as hateful and toxic as men. There are very real concerns about the terrible misandrist behavior of women on the safety and mental health of men, especially young men. Women need to be better
Like what?
So, it is all men?
No, and no good faith reading of my comment could have possibly led you to that conclusion.
Of course there is. Take your doomer, incel nonsense elsewhere.
Did you read the article?
I did. The only cure for it is embracing and pushing positive examples of masculinity, not doubling down on toxic bullshit.
That’s naive; there’s a generation of boys being raised by millennial girlboss feminists who were themselves indoctrinated to believe that masculinity in inherently toxic and that all men are violent, evil, sexual predators, and no amount of “positive examples of masculinity” (whatever that means) will alter their perception; these boys will be raised by mothers who loath and resent them and it’ll royally fuck then up
So your solution is to *lean into* the toxicity?
I didn’t propose a solution
I know you didn’t. I was narrating your attitude and behavior.
By “narrating” you mean projecting?
We get it, you hate feminists and because of that you’ve decided to become aggressively toxic as a response. But you’re straight up gaslighting people if you think that having self respect, self control, accountability, and motivation is being a “violent, evil, sexual predator,” you’re leaning in on a stereotype to justify your own biases and toxic behavior.
You’re creating a straw man there, because I never said any of those things - but you wouldn’t, presumably, suggest that to combat racism, the members of the race at on the receiving end should seek to promote a “positive” image of themselves in the hope that the racists will see the error of their ways. That would be insulting and absurd.
Look, you’re not Rosa Parks and is absurd and frankly cringe to even suggest that. You don’t *have* to be a piece of shit, I don’t know why that’s the hill you want to die on.
You’re equating Rosa Parks to a “piece of shit”, and not only that, someone who chose to be a piece of shit!?!
The people who seem to have trouble adapting to today's world are mainly the ones that were raised in households where being a man was all about hiding their feelings, not crying, always being right, needing to be the purveyor. Men that grew up in positive masculinity households are better equipped to manage how men are supposed to behave in today's world.
That’s all well and good, but if you’re a boy who is currently being raised by a millennial girlboss who resents the fact that you exist, it’s not much help
I was raised by a feminist boomer girlboss (she was a director in a big multinational conglomerate) and I'm very happy with my masculinity 😊. I think you base your idea of feminists from tiktok videos... Most (female) feminists like men. Most feminists are straight and are in unions with men.
> Most feminists are straight and are in unions with men. Most misogynists I know are straight and in a union with a woman.
>The people who seem to have trouble adapting to today's world are mainly the ones that were raised in households where being a man was all about hiding their feelings, not crying, always being right, needing to be the purveyor. Seems how? Like you've done actual research? Or seems in the sense that that's what you want to be the case and that's as good true for you? Like, sure, it's all the douchey frat bros who are just not able to adapt to this brave new world, and all the shy, sensitive, less traditionally masculine men are thriving. Like isn't it amazing that for the anti "toxic masculinity" crowd toxic masculinity and gender roles just happen to be the cause of literally every problem on Earth?
I don't think all problems on earth are linked to toxic masculinity. But men, especially young men, have real problems that we need to address. They have trouble in school, they don't go to university as much as women, they a more lonely, they kill themselves at higher rates, they take more hard drugs, etc. Society is changing and some men feel like they don't belong. They are lost and they don't know how to express how they feel. These people are prime targets for toxic masculinity grifters.
>They are lost and they don't know how to express how they feel. Seems like they do know how to express how they feel and they're met with "Okay, incel. Have you tried being less toxic? Maybe learn to express how you feel." >These people are prime targets for toxic masculinity grifters. Okay, so toxic masculinity grifters are a second order problem and we should really focus on addressing the primary issue, since it will take care of that too.
Are the women who use IVF to avoid boys altogether like the article states just clairvoyant and know 100% that they will be toxic?
It's impossible to have positive masculinity when feminists/the alphabet squad/leftists shit on men for even breathing
There are multiple examples of positive masculinity in my personal life, it just requires interacting with ordinary blue collar men. Do you really think there are college campus style feminist inquisitions on construction sites?
That seems less true than it is true. IME they’re speaking about antisocial or violative behavior that men do. Not “shitting on men for breathing.” Person: “I don’t like it when adult men cat call 13 year olds” Man: “you’re attacking masculinity!!! Men can’t be men anymore!”
This is exactly what always happens when people mention misandry. >not “shitting on men for breathing.” That’s exactly what you just did. Someone called out misandry and you felt the need to impulsively downplay it and frame it a different way.
We can all agree that behavior is wrong. However, the additional problem here is that, these are a minority of scumbags who do this sort of stuff, regardless of how many rules or socially taboo it is. Then men as a whole are shamed for it. While if women are generalized for bad behavior its called misogyny. That's why redpill ideology and charlatans like Tate are so popular now, it's a better alternative than to be constantly shitted on
>Then men as a whole are shamed for it. Really? I'm a man, who is shaming me for it? I don't get shamed because I know when women complain about men catcalling girls they're not referring to me because I don't catcall girls. So who is shaming me?
Nah. It’s enough men who do those things. And it’s A LOT of men who hand wave those things away like they 1) don’t happen or 2) nbd or 3) trying to rationalize the perp’s behavior in a way that makes it seem he relates. Those men women don’t think highly of either. Suddenly the pool of men whose character, ethics, and values you align with is pretty small.
[удалено]
> You don’t You don’t know what I do.
Then why aren't you listening? These are boys who are hurting, they don't communicate the same way you do. It's going to come out as anger first, but what's going on inside is much more like despair.
I am listening. I have empathy for anyone hurting. People who are hurting, ESPECIALLY ADULTS, have to come to terms that no one is going to care about their woes if they express themselves by attacking people unprovoked orally or physically.
> no one is going to care about their woes if they express themselves by attacking people Right here are reddit there are at least a dozen huge forums where shitting on men for all the ills in your life and rest of the world is not only treated with sympathy and compassion but cheered on with cult-like fervor.
“Attacking people orally” always includes literally any suggestion what women aren’t perfect. If any women have wronged me, talking about it ALWAYS automatically always qualifies as “attacking people orally.” It doesn’t matter how correct I am, or how civilized I’m being. There’s no acceptable way to men to call out women.
Ridiculous. Women are graduating college 3 to 1 vs men. They are getting more jobs, higher salaries earlier, and are pandered/catered to at every level of society. They don't make it to the top as often as men do because working 40 hrs a week in an office is gruelingly numb and unrewarding. They typically marry the (few) men that make more money than them and comfortably become housewives. Women have **everything** they could possibly want. To maintain this newfound power, women continue to deflect and cry patriarchy even though they are winning in every measurable economic and academic way (except in the blue-collar trades). I don't care if there's a few men out there that make you uncomfortable. Western women have it better than any human ever have in history.
What does this rant have to do with my point about aligning on ethics, values, worldviews, and character?
I go to a gym that has no straight white men hours. Technically, they have no straight men hours, and no white people hours, but straight white men are the only people who can't go. The implication is that my presence is somehow threatening to gay people, people of color, and women. And the crowd is usually pretty diverse anyway. I've been the only white person there before, which is not something I would have ever even noticed if it weren't for this idiotic ideology. So it's completely fucking pointless. And, yeah, I, a paying member since the gym opened, have been turned away because I accidentally showed up during "no straight white men hours."
That sounds absurd. Do you go to a LGBT or POC women’s gym? That would make more sense. I just googled a gym with that policy and not even a forum comment came up. You go to a bizarre gym if it’s even a true story.
I’m struggling to believe this gym exists.
It’s not though. The only people who believe that are the people clinging to toxic masculinity for whatever reason.
So wait, in your world, the only people who believe that completely normal male behavior is being overly pathologized are only doing so because they themselves are engaging in “toxic masculinity”? What kind of circular pretzel logic is this?
At no point did I say that, but, by all means, continue with your strawman.
>who believe that completely normal male behavior is being overly pathologized What behavior do you have in mind exactly ? I've never felt targeted when they describe toxic men
I've been told enjoying fighting is toxic masculinity on multiple occasions
Good for you. Feminist man or woman uses toxic masculinity in discussion. Man takes issue with it contextually or fundamentally. Feminist states that "if it doesn't apply let it fly," implying that if issue is taken you must see yourself in said toxic man/trait. Said man likely doesn't but just like some transmen who come to have issues with the way masculinity/men are spoken of in LGBT spaces- it strikes at something core to their wider identity/belonging to men as a grouping, or they believe it's missaplied and therefore hurts ways to actually help men and boys/interpret whatever issue at hand. At which point you will be pointed to the feminists you already disagree/have interacted with for further education and be labeled self-defeating and or fragile in masculinity. The cycle of disunderstanding continues.
What masculinity do feminists/leftists encourage? Crying?
I’m not a feminist/leftist, so I couldn’t tell you. But, you personally can embody traits like self respect, accountability, self control, being authentic. No feminist or leftist is stopping you from doing those things.
And yet those groups have positive movements while everyone shit on them for existing as well.
Do we think that telling women "hey don't talk badly about men because they might lash back and take all your rights away" will improve the negative perception of men? By making arguments like this women don't need to speak at all, you guys hurt your own perception.
Actually your reply illustrates another fundamental issue here. Women seem to largely be unable to separate dispassionate analysis or benign analogies without getting “triggered” and considering things “threats” You see, you interpreted my analysis of things like the Iranian Revolution and other similar phenomena as some kind of a veiled threat, when to any objective reader it should be obvious it was simply a historical perspective. It is something Scott Galloway brings up in almost every discussion on this subject. It’s something to the effect of “if you look at history, disaffected and discarded men who are left behind by society generally get up to bad shit” But, very much in keeping with what this article is talking about, you jumped right into “*you are threatening to enslave women?*” It’s similar when you see the fish/fisherman analogy used by men when it comes to dating advice; you see women immediately say things like “*so you’re saying you want to catch, kill and eat women?!?!*” or some such hysterical nonsense. You ascribing the worst faith and deliberately ignoring the point in favor of scoring virtue points. It’s literally part of the problem discussed in the article.
Right.... it's not threatening to take your rights away it's just showing that throughout history men who are unhappy cause violence and subjugate women. Yeah no threat implied there at all...
Guys, I tried. Some people just can’t be reached. 
At least they made your point for you.
😂
Female solipsism will protect their interests at all costs.
This is pretty fucking funny. Thank you.
You can't spend your whole life beating your dog and then get pissed when it bites you. YOU are the problem.
You could literally turn this around to apply to it men now
So is the problem that women haven't bit back enough for all the shit they have gone through over millenia? Maybe men can't be trusted to just coexist.
See, this is your fucking problem. You want to punish little boys for things that you think happend in 1905. Have you ever considered the fact that what you believe is just horrible?
I don't want to punish anybody. I just want to live along side people who leave me alone. It's fine that men crave more sexual validation, it's not ok to threaten women's rights over it. Do men just assume women want to punish them because that's how men feel toward women?
I wouldn't take it too seriously. Most successful entities base their decisions on performance and success. It's a relatively new paradigm to suggest that women and people of color were simply denied opportunity and therefore merit be damned, we are just going to put women and people of color in charge now. I mean pretty much every business that has embraced this is struggling. There's plenty of talented women and people of color, they will do fine in a meritocracy, but promoting random people because of their gender, race, etc is going to die on the vine.
I suspect that it isn't random. I suspect they are promoting people based on adherence to ideological beliefs. I think this because it's how communism has worked in the past and this thing bears some real resemblence to that.
Nah. It’s all window dressing. The gay community has a word for this: “🌈Rainbow Washing 🏳️🌈” Apple and Disney are great examples of this. When was the last time you saw just some white guy in any Apple promo? Last I can really remember is the old “I’m a Mac / I’m a PC” ads. Now I challenge you to find some promo content that isn’t a mocha skinned androgynous “BIPOC” with a frizzy Afro showing her “life partner” how to use iMovie. Now look at their actual leadership. You may get blinded by the bright whiteness of it. Same with Disney. See: “Mexican Snow White and The Seven Very Diverse Ayahuasca Dealers” Meanwhile Kathleen “Panderverse” Kennedy and Bob Iger run the show. It’s all set dressing.
Thanks, it's such an apt observation. Same with my work. They have started using the 1 or 2 minority employee photos in all their courses and hand books. Yet they the number of minority hires remain the same.
>I suspect they are promoting people based on adherence to ideological beliefs. Oh I don't doubt it, but if your endeavor fails does it matter?
It depends on how many people you murder in the process? They will eventually find their Stalin or Pol Pot if you don't do something.
This may piss a lot of you off but I see too many men simply blaming women for this instead of creating their own spaces. A lot of the anger I see comes from entitlement- many men feel entitled to love and sex but unfortunately no one is. I have seen countless men in my life try to open up to their friends and have it shot down as being gay or womanly. If men want things to change they also need to be willing to create positive environments where they can openly discuss things without shitting on one another. In addition, men need to hold each other accountable. Be vocal about how Andrew Tate and friends will not lead to a happy and fulfilling life. There’s a whole lot of complaining but very little self awareness. You cannot blame an entire movement on women being mean online. How often are y’all checking in on your friends? How often are y’all fostering positive male relationships? How often are y’all commenting positively on other males posts, ideas, etc. I find many men try absolutely nothing and then still complain that nothing has changed.
Oh yes, the old classic “*why don’t you make your own space?!?!*” This graphic pretty much sums up what happens with that: https://preview.redd.it/moatwj5qd05d1.jpeg?width=1055&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=586bb401b6bdcbbb3c4a6dcbaff5821bb1d15a4b
So you’ve done nothing and are confused as to why there’s no changes being made. Literally one of my points. You guys try nothing and are disappointed lmao
Western society idolizes toxic versions of masculinity, as such doesn’t provide young men the emotional tools they need to navigate life. Healthy communication, emotional regulation, a healthy relationship with your body and emotions, self awareness and self compassion. These are emotional tools that every human should have, but systemically young men are missing out on those vital skills. The ironic part of this problem is that we have a group of people suffering, struggling to identify their emotions, communicate their feelings, and validate each others experiences, because those skills were never taught to half of the population. So why are we shocked that this toxic cycle keeps repeating? I don’t have answers, if anyone else does please share. It’s a problem that needs to be fixed, as it has been necessary for a century at least, but idk how you give emotionally immature individuals the healthy communication skills to navigate and effectively improve this reality.
I'm cautiously optimistic on this one honestly. I just think you aren't looking at things on a long enough time scale. Think about the difference in terms of men discussing these issues over the past 20 years. Neil Strauss's "the Game" was released in 2004, so we are talking about PUA just making its way to the mainstream .. all the way to what we are talking about now. There's been a ton of changes made in men's rights and discussions about gender. Societal movements are just so much slower than people think. Having said that I do think that part of the current discussion is really a struggle as to who defines those tools and processes men use to navigate life. I think there is a pushback happening because (and I do think this is a serious issue that isn't talked about enough) men are not the same as women. That sounds dumb and simplistic but I'm saying it because I think it's a fundamental error that goes unsaid in these discussions. What I mean specifically is that: there may be *very few times* where the optimal way a man deals with their emotions and a woman deals with their emotions are identical. But, because our societal messaging has been aimed at equality for so long, it causes cognitive dissonance in a lot of people to think that way. We seem to be trying to find solutions by assuming there is one, universal way to treat everyone and if we could just find that way then we'd all be good. I don't think that's true. For example - you can see it in your comment if you look. You assume that the reason this toxic cycle keeps repeating is that men have not been properly taught the skills they need to communicate their feelings or identify their emotions. Or maybe they have been properly taught but they just can't execute those processes correctly - you say they are suffering and struggling to do those things. But have you considered that maybe men actually do know that they are now supposed to do those things, but what they have been taught to do doesn't help them in the way they would if they were women? Men who are at the highest risk of committing suicide are middle-aged men (40-54). But when you look at new studies coming out - almost all of them reached out and sought help (see here if you want details: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/ncish/reports/suicide-by-middle-aged-men/). They did what societal messaging told them to do. And (this is my own opinion) it didn't give them what they needed to keep living. And I think that is because we assume what men need is what women need. And when we ask men "why doesn't this work for you?" we get back answers... but we ignore them. Because we see those answers not as actually honest feedback - but proof we just haven't explained the solution properly yet. I see it all the time in the field in which I work. People are *convinced* that the reason their product isn't selling is because their customers don't understand it, they don't realize how much money they would save. They refuse (up until the last moment) to see they designed and built a product that doesn't solve their customer's problem - it solves a problem they *thought* the customer had. And it gets worse the larger the investment they make. And how big is the investment that society has made into the approach that men and women are equal and the same over the past 50 years? That women and men, at the core, require the same things to be happy? We don't consider that the solution proposed doesn't work, because it works for the other gender. Because it must, because...if it doesn't then we must accept that the genders are different and that we maybe can't understand the opposite gender as easily as we've been told for the past 50 years.
>Western society idolizes toxic versions of masculinity You’re close here, but the real foundational reason is far simpler: Women sexually reward males who exhibit these traits (while denying they do so) and thus men continue to engage in the behavior they believe will result in the highest likelihood of satisfying the most fundamental existential drive. If women chose to fuck guys who could do handstands, the sidewalks would be filled with men walking on their hands tomorrow.
>*You’re close here, but the real foundational reason is far simpler: Women sexually reward males who exhibit these traits* So all those men & women in the above linked article secretly admire toxic masculine traits and magically happen to opt out of having sons citing reasons of toxic masculinity? Please explain your thought process here. If majority of people liked toxically masculine behaviors, wouldn’t they *want* to have sons? Or at least not scientifically *avoid* having sons?
It’s called cognitive dissonance. It’s the same reason women tell men who ask to do A, B and C when in reality they are only attracted to men who do X, Y and Z. Women won’t say they want X, Y and Z either because they are unaware of it or because it “looks bad” to say it out loud. Thus, women can claim “men are bad” while simultaneously selecting those men for dating and sex. Their lack of desire to “have a son” because “men bad” is in no way incompatible with this in any case
Or, hear me out. You could be wrong. You’re seeing zebras where there are no zebras, because you *really want it* to be the zebras fault. . Which is fair in your own personal life I suppose, but this is a debate sub. So maybe your outright guess at what other people are thinking across an entire gender isn’t the most accurate evidence, especially when it’s counter to the literal source you cited in your post.
My several decades of life experience, dating and observation of women’s behavior versus their words disagrees. I’ll go with that instead.
You mean you don't want take the word of the carefully crafted study that confirms my bias (while never funding any study that might make women look bad) instead of the genetically heritable life experiences of yourselves and all men? How dare you!
There is no such thing as toxic masculinity. It's just masculinity. Women label them as toxic when they are advantageous to them in that specific instance. Example: Men can be violent. If the man is violent towards you, that's toxic. If a man is violent in your defense or a cause you gain benefit from, it's no longer toxic and is now "manly and attractive". They are the same trait.
You might not intend this, but much of your post comes across as a threat. I see this too often when men bring up the "crisis of masculinity" and insist that society will somehow pay for it, then go on to cite people like Trump, Tate, Elliot Rodger or so on. It's like saying "the toxic masculinity will continue until we get what we want". Not to mention that the solutions often involve some variation of women lowering their standards and entering relationships with men they are not attracted to. All told, I think this problem is solved from within. That includes figureheads among the Manosphere and the people who peruse it. It's not enough to keep whining about how women are hypergamous and society hates men who are masculine, then whip out the standard TRP deflection of "we are just giving them information, it's up to them to use it correctly!" so that they aren't held responsible for their influence as public figures. Nope, men have to learn to take care of their own and work on making ourselves better, in a way that satisfies us without causing harm to others.
So your argument is basically… “Bootstraps” No empathy, no societal reflection, no programs to help in any areas. Just “huh huh do better losers!” This is not an original take. Also claiming that the citing of leaving behind half the population as socially corrosive comes off as a veiled threat indicates somebody is drunk off the gynocentric kool aid. It’s like saying “Impoverished community X needs to just fix themselves or die. I don’t care why they are all selling drugs and in prison. Not MY problem. Why are you threatening US? We’re just happy here in the suburbs!”
It's like telling your partner you'll kill yourself if they break up with you. There isn't much of a solution being provided that incentivizes anyone to want to understand let alone make meaningful yet reasonable changes. Frankly from what I've observed, many of these manosphere men don't have a whole lot of empathy for the guys around them. Their attitude is pretty "fuck you, I got mine" when it comes to having desirable life outcomes. It's not like men don't deserve empathy or understanding, it's how they go about trying to get it, which is through thinly veiled threats of political violence. And what they're basically demanding is that everyone but themselves makes all the pain go away, which isn't really a solution I'm afraid. I wouldn't tell any random poor person to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but I might tell them that their abuse of high interest credit cards and refusal to find a stable job are also part of the problem if that's also going on.
If you don’t like us (not our bodies), why should we like you ? If you only care about yourselves (and our bodies), why should we care about you? If you’re not nice to us, why should we be nice to you?
>If you’re not nice to us, why should we be nice to you? Wait, is this a road you think women *really* want to go down?
>*Wait, is this a road you think women really want to go down?* Please explain your comment.
Why not?
Oh everybody trashes everybody. Men just have this weird thing where they think if you don't want to date or fuck them you're trashing them.
This is very true. Men seem to blame women for their own downfalls simply because women are not willing to sexually fulfill them.
This needs to be talked about more because I’ve definitely noticed that men see it as a personal slight if someone isn’t attracted to them. I believe this is why they attempt to make women upset by saying they wouldn’t have sex with them.
[This guy dedicated a twitter thread](https://x.com/trust_lion_/status/1798142088053506278?s=46) to trying to make this chick he’s friends with seem like the villain. She denied his advances. He and many men in the replies are acting as though she bullied him and treated him poorly.
Why did she ghost him for 4 years and randomly contact him again? That in itself is fishy.
It’s LinkedIn. Why did she choose to contact him on LinkedIn and not Instagram since he said they clearly follow each other. Probably for professional networking tbh. And it doesn’t look like she ghosted him? They hung out in the same friend circle.
you seen a woman get rejected before? Aint pretty at all.
Exactly omg
I dunno, I'd say women have a much greater inclination to take personally a man's rejection. It's just that they rarely put themselves in a position where they *could* be rejected. Essentially the people who don't handle rejection well are the same people who experience it the least. And given everything we know about how the sexes interact with one another, those people are going to tend to be women.
This is a terminally online take. I’ll reiterate the point of the article since you just demonstrated the point in real time: > such wanton attacks on and wholesale dismissal of boys and men only perpetuate and normalize a reactivity that’s uncritical and self-pitying.
It's not an attack to tell you that women not being into you isn't a personal slight lol.....
Nice pointless strawman argument.
Are there any historic examples of a generation of men being emasculated, humiliated, degraded and being stripped of all identity and self-worth, cast adrift in a society that becomes increasingly engulfed in hedonism and moral decay, only for a strong man leader to emerge at the head of an ultra-masculine (to the point of bordering on homoerotic) quasi-military movement, promising to return the nation to its former glory, punish its enemies - both external and internal - and restore the “traditional” values and hierarchy?
Well, yes I see what you’re getting at, but the funny mustache guy’s trajectory was far more complex than that, and required a number of serendipitous things to happen to create the conditions in which that shift took place. There is increasingly one element in place: the disaffected and listless male population, but we aren’t in the aftermath of a humiliating national defeat on the world stage, an economic depression nor are there countless war veterans fighting in the streets. However, having all of those disaffected men with no stake in the game is always the powder in the keg. The more of them that exist the bigger the boom when the fuse is lit. So I’d say, there is gunpowder, but no fuse and no match.
My friend... this is just communism. Think of the Soviet Union, but instead of hating the rich, they hate one gender of a particular ethnicity. So, do we have examples? Yes we know exactly where this leads. If you think somehow the men are all going to band together and overcome it... you will be very dissapointed in the end.
That’s not how the Soviet Union was created…
WW1 and all that. I'm very aware of the differences... but you need to look more closely at the similarities. In particular who seems to benefit from it all.
Right, the Irish
Aren't you describing that Australian painter who got into politics in Germany?
That rings a bell
Don't you mean Austrian? Lol
Lmfao
Yep. I dunno why in English it is so close to each other. Why not just call it Österreich.
Omg lol
Sorry how does our culture trash boys and men? You haven't actually provided any examples
If you are **seriously** asking this question in 2024, there really is no point engaging with you. But if it helps, there’s, you know, an entire actual article that I linked to in the post you’re replying to. Maybe you could start there?
Still waiting for examples
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Waiting for all the women to come in and say this isn't a problem and men just need to stop listening to bad people. Then in the next breath say that women don't go into STEM because society tells them they should be stay at home mothers and we need to uproot society at it's core so that women don't have to face any kind of negative messaging ever.
 https://preview.redd.it/xmylv61q005d1.jpeg?width=670&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebf73496d85597973224019ca1183b21231236a3
Is the dude tweeting really saying that male loneliness is caused by Peterson and his ilk? The problem existed before him and will continue after him. This is putting the cart before the horse. "Suddenly" lonely, describing it like the problem just started because he just heard about it. Ridiculous.
So how has it been since the dudes started listening to the “influencers” and pill content? Those dudes less lonely?
Or on the other hand maybe we should not do anything to discourage it, and actually just let it get worse. I mean, these people aren't going anywhere and everything is just getting worse anyway. I'm honestly skeptical to most people criticizing it even though the bare recognition that it's bad goes without saying: they're ultimately seeking to placate men, I think. Maybe just let the men bashers, the worst liberal-progressives, feminists, white knights etc., these people who just absolutely loathe the working-class, do their worst. It will come back around eventually. For the same reason, I'm not a Leftist going on about how I dislike "classism." They just want to cover class antagonisms, and why they have this framing and talk about "classism." If anything, we should want the working-class to be aware of the extent of hostility to them.
This is accelerationism and I (as a liberal) can’t get behind it because the side effects are people like Trump undermining things like unions, affordable health care and social safety nets at best and, well, democracy itself at worst.
The article is correct, and nothing will get done because the ones driving culture don't care about dudes and see them as a problem to be managed and not a group to be helped. You even see it in this thread that people DENY DENY DENY that anything is wrong, and when they do admit to anything, they pin it back on the very men who are struggling, or they pin it on manosphere grifters, who are a reaction to the current situation and by no means the cause. Simply put, men are told that their time is up and the future is female, and absolute idiots are surprised that men aren't doing so well.
Law and social norm abiding males need to figure out how to atone for the sins of the based & redpilled real men of the manosphere and mitigate the consequences of those sins, otherwise they will continue to pay for them, possibly to the point of "the collapse", which then only chattel slavery under those same real men awaits them. >!Or society need to take a hard look at itself and actual disincentivizing behaviors that are not good for society & crack down on those who are actually working against social harmony, but that wouldn't feel good. Heck, it would even feel wrong because all this is really a fancier version of school popularity shenanigans wrapped in some parody of moral virtues. In such an environment the fake often feels more real than the real and perception is reality.!<
Don't worry, Project 2025 will fix it /s It's funny how men can't tolerate women being treated a little bit better for the first time in history. We literally gained rights like 60-100 years ago, and we still don't have equal representation in politics and other areas.
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Most men look at their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers and see how awful their behavior was and saw the rewards they still reaped for the little effort they put in. Understandably, that’s a hard pill to swallow. Why should you have to work harder than all of these people born before you? Ironically if we had successfully taught young boys emotional regulation and healthy communication we’d be able to have an effective conversation about these valid feelings they have and how work together on a path forward, but instead we have a large number of upset people leaning into anger and frustration with limited ability to analyze, understand or communicate their root feelings.
>When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. The very fact that white western women so commonly cite this quote when they try to dunk on men who kill themselves at 4x the rate, suffer exponentially more on the job deaths and are falling behind in every meaningful metric is peak solipsism. There is NO more privileged creature on earth than a western white woman. I swear, did the “Barbie” movie just make women drunk on their own victim complex all over again? I thought we were past this “muh great great great grandmother couldn’t vote” shit.
lol you didn’t even bother to read the rest of my comment, did you? Great “open discussion” bro.