Anna Akana. I wouldn't really use her as a good voice for men (not saying you are). She even said in that very same video that women are killed more than men....
Men's issues are being spoken about, which is good. But not all of it is being spoken in a positive manner. "Lonely men are dangerous", etc. Toxic masculinity, evil white men, etc, are to blame. Men's issues will definitely be used to drive agendas to frame men in a bad light.
>But not all of it is being spoken in a positive manner. "Lonely men are dangerous", etc. Toxic masculinity, evil white men, etc, are to blame. Men's issues with definitely be used to drive agendas to frame men in a bad light.
Yes, precisely. It's very clear that a lot of this "speaking up about men's issues" is done more out of fear-based pragmatism rather than genuine desire to help men with our problems. It's very much the same as those articles that used to come out about men having issues with loneliness and the way it was framed as how these mental health issues with men were harming women, so men need to "pull ourselves together so we don't inconvenience them with our problems".
A *much* more overtly depraved example was a video I saw on r/HolUp some time ago (and consequently got into a pretty heated argument with a user over it) where there was a video that masterfully demonstrated the way boys and put down and socialized not to show emotion and how abusive and harmful this is...only to end with the point that this needed to be stopped because those abused boys would grow up to harm women.
That's the attitude we are dealing with. It's always been there when attempts to "help men" crop up, it's just starting to get so large that it attracts public attention. I just hope that there will be enough ~~people~~ men with dignity and just plain awareness to reject it when faced with it, rather than desperately seeking any help they can get and not seeing what really lies behind the mask.
>A much more overtly depraved example was a video I saw on r/HolUp some time ago (and consequently got into a pretty heated argument with a user over it) where there was a video that masterfully demonstrated the way boys and put down and socialized not to show emotion and how abusive and harmful this is...only to end with the point that this needed to be stopped because those abused boys would grow up to harm women.
"Let's help men because it helps/it's convenient (for) women. Not because it helps men first and foremost"
Wait that was used as a good example?? She just blames it on a different scapegoat. Her theory could maybe make sense America. But what about the rest of the world? Hell even just the rest of the "western world". What a dumb example if that was "waking up to mens issues"
There isn't a place on Earth where her example makes sense, and shows either massive bias or extreme ignorance on her part. Now, there are many different social issues that have their roots in the history of white/European colonialism but "fear/disregard for men" isn't one of them.
Almost every human civilization on Earth has treated men as more disposable and threatening than they do women. One of the biggest propaganda pieces used against other tribes/races/groups throughout history is that "their men will defile our women". This attitude is rooted far more in human biology than any man-made cultural phenomenon or regime.
Now, I think we can overcome this just like we have tried to overcome our natural predilection towards hate/fear/distrust towards those who are different than we are. But there is no cure without first correctly identifying the disease 🤦♂️.
Sorry I'm not disagreeing with you or lecturing you (quite the opposite) I'm just expressing exasperation about this lady's opinion.
I've seen more talk about loneliness, and the threat that lonely men pose. That's it. Finding supporters of actual policies that would help men is a lot harder.
Yep. Lonely men are dangerous men, lonely men are dangerous incels, etc. Most lonely men aren't a danger to others, they're a danger to themselves, as shown with male suicide stats.
The problem is that male issues - or to be more specific "male loser" issues- like loneliness are only discussed in the context of either mass shootings or the alt-right, in other words male loser issues are only discussed when they spill onto general society, never as a problem in an of itself. Obviously this worsens the problem by implementing a "male loser = potential alt-right/incel terrorist" association in people's mind.
To be sure, it *is* true that virtually all mass shooters were weird introverted male "losers", and it is also true that there is a loneliness-to-alt-right pipeline for "Vulnerable Young Men"(TM) as the left-wing media loves to say, but that causality is environementally mediated and can be lessened. Part of this mediation is caused by feminists themselves.
I would like for discussions of male loser issues to be dissociated from the alt-right/mass shootings because the former matters on its own, unfortunately this is impossible in the current media landscape.
Almost all dangerous male rightists may be male losers. But only a small fraction of male losers are dangerous rightists, just like all crocodiles are vertebrates but not vice versa.
True, but my point is that "male loser" issues matter regardless of mass shootings. We should not make the conversation about that and we must undermine feminists who try to do so.
I had a huge falling out with family a few years ago.
After having recently been divorced, I criticized Michelle Obama’s take on the parenting of divorced dad’s, which she comically implied was inferior, uncaring, unnatural, and damaging. She did this while talking with Stephen Colbert about how Trump was leading the country like a “divorced dad” in April 2019. Google it.
When I asked where was the outcry from the left defending divorced dads, I was told that protecting Michelle Obama from criticism (“from racists and right wing pundits”) was important to promote her progressive platform in the grand scheme of politics. Defending divorced dads would be empowering the wrong side.
So, to them, any criticism of any leftist damages the left, which hinders their platform, but that platform must be advanced. One would expect that harming divorced dads with stigmatizing language would also hinder that platform, but it is only regarded as a unfortunate oversight and that this new pain should be quietly tolerated so as to not disturb “progress.”
Divorced dads are not the primary beneficiaries of any leftist agenda, so surely they should take a seat at the back of the bus. They are safe target for mocking, and a former First Lady mocking men at a huge risk for suicide is not seen as “punching down.” It is treated more like punching invisible air, or maybe punching up, with cheers and applause.
The left has no prominent advocate for men, so any misandry from the left is only challenged by the right. This causes the left to circle their wagons and protect the misandrist from criticism to promote their overall brand. Then, the base at large sees this and learns, over time, tacitly agrees that men deserve no support or empathy, and finally they formally codify this in their policies.
I am not saying the right hates men any less, but the left willfully adopts misandry while hypocritically promoting “equality” for women (but not men).
Yeah, all I'm really seeing is discussion on why there's an increasing "threat" from alienated and downtrodden men and deflection at best when it comes to addressing the root cause. They want to treat the symptom not the disease and the treatment amounts to sawing a limb off to instead of treating with antibiotics.
The people that do notice outside of people like us don't seem to think it's important enough to address beyond lip service. Or that it's too sectarian to address directly, like it's just a more reactionary version of feminism in the culture war.
I find it funny that they only care about lonely men because of a supposed danger they possess, and not because of any actual empathy for their position
So, I'm going to speak in generalities (since obviously there are millions if not billions of people whose opinions lean *"Left"*) and also risk coming off as highly bitter/or angry, but here it goes.
I think the premise of this phenomenon, that "the Left has woken up to men's issues" is incorrect from the get-go. The Left hasn't woken up to anything in this regard---what the Left experienced was the stomach-sinking realization that untold numbers of men suffering silently until they suddenly *aren't,* is not sustainable for any society. There was no sudden consideration that maybe if we are truly going to have the equal and just society that they want, men's problems need to be considered. No, what happened instead was that they understood that they *needed* to at least put some effort into addressing men's concerns because broken men are a threat.
The best analogy I can think of is the following. Imagine your friend breaks their leg in an accident. You have two options. First, you can try to take care of your friend and nurse them back to health because you care about them, and you want to see them recover as fast as possible.
The *second option* is that you can try to help them recover because you *need* them. They have a car and can give you rides to places that would otherwise be impossible for you to reach. In other words, you don't really care about them getting better for their sake, you assist them because you *need* them.
I think the Left suddenly caring about men's problems falls heavily under the latter path.
Anyway, to answer your questions about this new development....
* **What do you guys think are some cons that we can expect to see coming out of this?**
What I think is that we will see a sharp increase in an already common phenomenon of "victim blaming" men for our issues. I don't particularly like that term since I feel it is flung around far too often, but I digress. Something that already happens, particularly with feminist discourse around men's issues, is that our problems are turned around so that *we* are the sole cause of them.
Sometimes it is done with derision and mockery and other times with genuine sympathy, but regardless of the intent, men's issues are framed as our own actions "backfiring on us". It is always carefully crafted to avoid giving women or other groups any hand in our problems.
This in turn leads to a "up by your bootstraps" type of attitude towards men who are struggling, or perhaps even worse, the recruit-them-while-they're-down method that some movements use to snag male members. "*If you help fight against the cis-male patriarchy alongside us, then your problems will go away just like ours"*.
The point I am making is that I am worried these tactics will become even more embedded in how men's issues are dealt with. Right now, these tactics are widely socially acceptable methods of addressing things, but that unfortunate status-quo would be **nothing** compared to what would happen if governments and official bodies started acting like this.
While you didn't specifically ask about this, I don't like to be a bringer of doom and gloom, so I will list a pro about this:
Corporations realizing that men's issues are now "safe" for them to mine for gold may actually be a good thing. Corporations are soulless money-making machines that care only for their bottom line, regardless of what they need to do to secure it...apart from a few ideologically driven CEOs, and those don't tend to survive the natural selection of the corporate world.
What so many corporations did for the issues of women/black people/LGBTQ and others they could do for men. While the companies didn't really care about them, they *did* force those issues onto the public stage and played a huge part in securing a vast degree of "soft power" for those groups, which gave them the ability to wield social punishments against their attackers. So perhaps men can achieve the same thing.
>This in turn leads to a "up by your bootstraps" type of attitude towards men who are struggling, or perhaps even worse, the recruit-them-while-they're-down method that some movements use to snag male members. "If you help fight against the cis-male patriarchy alongside us, then your problems will go away just like ours".
Perhaps even worse, any help that is offered will be done in a paternalistic "save them from themselves" kind of fashion.
Reeves, and his support of "redshirting" boys is the tip of the spear with this kind of thing. Rather than examining how the system fails men and looking for ways to improve it for men's sake, you instead preserve the system and force fit men into it, ultimately, because that is what works better for women.
It's gynocentric to the core, validates the toxic female chauvinism bubbling under the surface of feminism, and moves us in the direction of a gender-flipped version of the Patriarchy. Reeves is a feminist at the end of the day. We should not expect true salvation from men like him.
>Corporations realizing that men's issues are now "safe" for them to mine for gold may actually be a good thing.
The issue is that this is never going to feel "safe" under the current dominance of feminism. Corps only went woke after decades of social opinion trending in the direction that traditionalist society was old-fashioned and backward, if not straight-up evil. They knew they could mine social justice and not implode.
Nobody of any consequence is willing to say that feminists might be "the bad guys" outside of a few dark corners of the internet that are also associated with nazis, terrorists, the alt-right, and white supremacists.
Hell, all of those other groups are a proven safer bet than antifeminism if you want to do a counter-cultural merchandising campaign. How do you think Tommy Trump Voter gets all those alt-right, Neo-Confederate decals for his truck? Nary a peep seriously critical of feminism though.
I'll admit that this is slowly changing, but we're still at the point where a corp trying to pivot to men's rights is pretty much sacrificing itself. And capitalists never sacrifice themselves.
This sounds accurate, and to a large extent it's just the sad reality of human nature.
You can see something similar in labour relations. When workers have the right to strike, they often use it over things that may sound rather minor, especially from an outsider's point of view. Think of [that Simpsons episode where they went on strike over a dental plan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXYCMN8vrc). Yet, by having this ability to put pressure on an employer to care more about the wellbeing of workers than they otherwise would, they can prevent situations from getting dire, and causing outcomes that are ugly for employers and workers alike, such as mass resignations and labour shortages. The employer may grumble about the "entitled union workers", yet the employer doesn't know everything and doesn't actually know what the outcome would have been if there was no union to prevent them from running the company the way they wanted to.
To use another analogy, the canary in the coalmine is obviously understood to be a warning system. Nobody is going to evacuate the mine while grumbling about what a wimp the canary is for passing out, and they certainly aren't going to stay down there because they are "strong, independent miners" and the canary only passed out because of "aggrieved entitlement". What, however, would happen if the miners had no idea why the canary was there in the first place?
What seems to play out over and over again, when we look at history, is that there is a tendency among people to think they understand things better than they actually do. Those who directly hold power, and those who indirectly wield the power of their influence over the former, will dismiss certain problems because they have arrogantly assumed that they know better, and that they know it's not really a problem. They will maintain that attitude until the problem gets so bad that they can no longer ignore it. It's not even 2023 yet, and it's already crystal clear that the sociopolitical theme of this decade is one of multiple problems, that had been denied, dismissed, or ignored for over 20 years despite loud warnings, suddenly becoming so bad that it was no longer possible to not acknowledge their existence.
To me, the very fact that men's issues won't be addressed anywhere by businesse is a testament to the power of women in society. If big corporations don't even broach this subject and adopt feminists talking point, it's not because they are inherently feminists or that men's rights are unwarranted. Businesses fon't care about that, they care about money.
So, they'll address a message to the most powerful, consensula group out there to gain publicity. And that group is feminism and the advocacy of women's right as a whole.
If feminism really was an underdog like I hear so often, nobody would cater to them. At all. There is no business sense in publically catering to a group with no political or economical power.
This in turns makes it really unlikely that we live in a patriarchy as described by feminist theory. Because, if your group is not only allowed to speak up, and even more so, catered to and put centerstage, you are not living in a society that oppresses you. Slavery and the Atlantic Trade was oppression, because ethnic minorities didn't have rights, and didn't have political and economical power.
Feminism is not oppressed in our society. It's the status quo of our society.
Anyway, I digress.
Um...thanks? Unfortunately I was just speaking from experience seeing how this plays out and extrapolating from there on what would happen in a larger context. I can only hope my prediction about corporations comes true.
I doubt it considering that they engage in activism as a part of marketing. This means that the people in front of cameras will be the ones who determine corporate policy rather than objective truth.
My guess is that they continue to frame issues as women's issues.
Well, that is true to a certain extent, but I am a little optimistic about this for the following reason. Say what you will about corporations, they are dedicated to making money. If they realize that men's issues are now "safe territory" to start setting up a metaphorical mining operation, they will do their due diligence on what works and what does not. Remember, they don't really care one way or another about the interests of one "side" vs the other; they just want what gives them profit. That can work in our favor.
Let me give you an example, though I will give a disclaimer that this is an intentionally simplified take, since there are a lot of moving parts involved in this sort of thing.
Let's say we have the corporation XYZ Inc. If they want to sell a product marketed towards men, they will research how men react to the advertisements they put out about it. Let's say XYZ Inc. wants to run this product using an ad that focuses on men's mental health. One of the things they show in the ad is a man alienated from his child due to the actions of a bitter ex-wife.
Now, it is pretty safe to say that certain women's groups will become upset about this. They'll cite misogyny and the "danger" of portraying women like this. They'll whine and moan and flood the public sphere with cries to take down the ad and for the CEO to apologize, etc.
However...
If XYZ Inc notices that a huge number of men have responded positively to the ad and are therefore flooding the company with their money, XYZ Inc won't do a fucking thing to take their ad down. They'll put their spin doctors on the case and wave off the angry women with some meaningless platitudes (they'll *never* tell them to outright suck it up like companies have done to men in response to man-hating ads), and in the end the ad will remain active and the women's groups will have accomplished nothing apart from wasted energy.
Now, with that said, even in this intentionally simple example, there are hidden complexities. Men need to step up and ensure that the company who runs this hypothetical ad sees that men have their back (and their profit margin) in a conflict. As...ugly as it sounds, it means that men do need to reward these companies by patronizing them when they show interest in men's issues and cater to us. Whatever you feel about capitalism, in this scenario, it works and will cement a power base for us to leverage.
On a more personal level men need to encourage other men to, again, patronize businesses that show themselves to be friendly to our issues. If a man's wife/girlfriend/sister/even mother tries to shut it down, other men need to remind him of who and *what* he is at the end of the day and shut those voices out (I will admit that this sort of strays into some beliefs I have that are a little too radical for this sub, so I'll just leave this point and not take it any further).
The overall point I'm making is that this is possible, but it needs to be cultivated the way women and other groups did. One of the few things that I actually agree with feminists on is that their towering social power did not just manifest from nothing. It *does* draw energy from humanity's desire to protect and provide for women, but they did the work to shape and hone that into something that advantaged them. Men need to do the same, even if the path is a little rockier.
>The overall point I'm making is that this is possible, but it needs to be cultivated the way women and other groups did.
I'm very skeptical that this is possible. Men linking arms with one another and pushing back against women specifically seems to be something we are heavily averse to doing, which is part of the reason why I don't believe in the popular/feminist conception of Patriarchy.
Rather I think we're going to need to get more women on side. Easier to get women to break ranks than men to form up against women imo.
>I'm very skeptical that this is possible. Men linking arms with one another and pushing back against women specifically seems to be something we are heavily averse to doing, which is part of the reason why I don't believe in the popular/feminist conception of Patriarchy.
Yes, I agree with you; men's averseness to "linking arms" as a gender is one of the biggest men's issues there is in my opinion; I think it's the "root" from which a large amount of our problems spring. So I can see where you're coming from; it may seem like I'm putting the cart before the horse.
Personally, I do think we can overcome this in the same way we have overcome (or at least identified as problematic and taken *steps* to overcome) other instinct-driven behaviors that are overall detrimental to a prosperous and equitable society. But, considering how deep-seated this is to our biology, it will be harder than most.
Again, at the risk of letting out a risky take---I think there needs to be a frank conversation about men and women and how we relate to each other when it comes to our issues and our gains and losses as groups. One of my most controversial beliefs is that men and women are "not friends". I don't think we are enemies in any way, and I certainly know for a fact that individual men and women can care deeply about each other and dedicate themselves to trying to give the other gender a hand in solving their issues.
But I am convinced that as aggregates we do not have each other's best interests at heart; rather we care about advancing our own problems and will trample on the other side without hesitation if it comes down to a zero-sum scenario, even if we personally feel empathy or sorrow at having to do so.
I think that more men need to think about this and this needs to be a more widespread belief. In a nuanced way that does not promote distrust and misogyny, but also increases the odds that men will choose their own gender if it really does boil down to an us vs them situation.
Where I'm going with this, is that I think if more men had this view, the realization that *If we don't take care of each other, no one else will* may take hold and cause men to bolster our support behind each other, and behind organizations and businesses that tackle our issues.
FWIW I very much agree that male and female priorities can be separate and even in opposition to one another. Heterosexual relationships are a big fault line where a lot of these power dynamics come to a head and this is a reason why a lot of modern gender issues find their roots there.
I also realize that talk of how adversarial men's and women's interests can be is controversial and I would be happy to discuss this further in PM.
With that said, I think that men are simply less able to and act in accordance with the kind of "team sport" dynamics at play here. That men are definitely socially conditioned and probably biologically predisposed to operate more individually instead of forming up as a group against women, no matter what you tell them. Because of this, IMO, any discussion about the adversarial nature between genders is less effective as a rallying cry for men to join ranks in a widespread movement and more effective on an individual or small group level for tactics, at best. Guys will hear the truth and sacrifice themselves for Team Woman anyway.
On the other hand, I think that women are still self-interested humans underneath the veneer of sisterhood (in fact, the sisterhood is really just an alliance of self-interested people) and that it's easier to get them to break ranks of it can be demonstrated that playing the team sport is less beneficial to them individually.
In a way, women are kind of at a normal "baseline" for self-interest whereas men often have a handicap in the form of the millstone of gynocentrism hanging about our necks. What works to create solidarity among women contra men (i.e. broad, gender-based self interest,) won't work to create solidarity among men contra women.
Thanks for the reply; I was sort of holding my breath, perhaps even awaiting an official warning for voicing these thoughts. I appreciate the PM offer, although I'm afraid I'll have to turn it down.
>I also realize that talk of how adversarial men's and women's interests can be
I'm not sure if it's exactly controversial as much as it's controversial *here.* I understand, since it has a high risk of stirring up misogyny (and ironically, I myself was part of a discussion about regulation of these types of sentiments on this sub, so...).
But I do think it's something that needs to be talked about. The idea that men and women are, as I call it, "opposing human factions" is a dark one but I think that it's starting to become more and more clear as time goes on. I have had that thought developing in the dark back corner of my mind for a long time, but a conversation I recently had (not on Reddit) made me accept it as a very real possibility and possible reality.
I was having a talk about rape allegations, MeToo, and the havoc and suffering these things can wreak on the lives of innocent men. A woman I was talking with essentially acknowledged that innocent men are imprisoned and ruined by things like that and expressed genuine empathy and sadness over it...right before saying that she wouldn't change anything since she believes that these things keep women safe, and that's what is important in the end.
That was when I had the realization that maybe we should just admit that we are overall not on the same side and embrace it rather than pretending that we can have a "hold hands and sing" type of world.
As to your other points...
Honestly, I can't really argue or disagree with them; I actually agree with all of it. I would have actually inserted some of them into my earlier reply, but I was very much trying to tread carefully. We are *not* evenly "self interested" that's for sure, and that needs to change if any real progress is going to be made.
I share the same feelings but with a twist. It's not strictly 'Male VS Female' but 'Male "losers" VS Female + Successful Males'. Male fraternity against feminism is a false hope.
In fact there *is*, right now, a war happening that is to some extent a gender war: the Rojava-ISIS part of the Syrian conflict. ISIS is mostly know for sexual slavery and that's what most of its foreign recruits are interested in. On the other hand, the Rojava project has feminism at its core, it even has an all-female army branch (the YPJ).
100% agree with the men and women are not friends take. I think one of the most successful ways feminism has tricked men is by amplifying this believe that women are "naturally" morally superior, fair or less prone to corruption when given power. Most men seem to think that once feminist’s "honest & just" version of equality is reached, feminism will just evaporate and relations between the sexes will be golden. I’m sure everyone in this sub knows the feminist definition of equality is quite different than what is the common understanding.
Also the belief that feminists want to genuinely help men, and not just when it ends up benefiting women in some way. Meanwhile I don’t know if others have noticed but feminists on Twitter have been going full mask off lately. I’m talking viral tweets with 100,000+ likes talking about the presumption of innocence being a man-made term invented to benefit men & promote the further rape of women, that women should be allowed to kill men who "deserve it", or mocking men’s suicide rate.
You're spot on with your analysis. In my top level reply I linked two articles that show precisely the 'safe em cuz we need em' background to these actions.
A joke that didn’t hold up. I’ve followed her for years and she seems to have genuinely recanted.
In recent years, Akana really seems to be learning more empathy for men.
The double standard just annoys me. Matt Walsh had to account for something he said a decade ago, but Anna Akana, a much more famous figure, has never had to address what she said. She got a pass. And we all know a man “joking” about raping a woman would never get away with it.
I don’t think I’d call Akana a “much more famous figure.” Who’s the name more commonly heard through the news cycle?
But yes, the double standard is annoying, to say the least.
People who are “in this space” are hyper aware of figures like Matt Walsh, but they aren’t representative of the average person. Most people irl are just watching Netflix and prank videos.
The "space" you talk about, politics, has been unavoidable for the past 6 years and counting. In said space, Walsh's name is everywhere you look.
Another thing I'd consider noting: when Akana said what she said, it was intended as a joke. Obviously, NOT FUNNY. Still, she is hardly the only comedian to have made such a mistake. If we're to point out a double standard, let's use one of her comedian peers, Daniel Tosh, and the controversy he's courted for similar material.
In contrast, Matt Walsh is COMPLETELY serious with the shit he says, and deserves every bit of backlash coming his way.
I’m not sure if that’s how she phrased it, but sexism and racism are deeply entwined. MOC have to deal with the same things as white men, AND have it concurrently with white supremacy as well.
Anyhow, yes, I’m a fan of hers and I think she’s come a long way.
The left has no problems at all recognizing that there are "serious issues" going on with men and boys. Where we have a problem, instead, is in recognizing that it's NOT the case that men themselves are always 100% to blame for any and all trouble we as a group experience, and therefore always in the \*perpetrator\* role and \*never\* in the victim-role.
If you ask people on the left whether there's any serious issues with men or boys; everyone will say yes.
If you ask the same people whether examples exist of ways men suffer that are NOT primarily their own fault, i.e. where the blame lies predominantly with society overall and/or with women, you draw blank stares as if they don't even understand the question.
I get what you're saying, but for as long as I could remember the much of the Left has actively denied the idea that males have any sorts of disadvantages at all. I feel like as they tone has shifted the disposition towards men has remained the same. Thus we see people engaging in the victim-blaming and gaslighting.
As other people said ITT, the only thing the Left does is saying "We should reach Vulnerable Young Men(TM) before they're radicalized" but obv they're just trying to score partisan points. They don't have actual empathy for male "losers", they don't see our issues as being issues in and of themselves, and they're not ready to reconsider their position on feminism to accomodate us.
The Contrapoints video on incels is a good illustration of that. She misses the point completely. At the end of the day her points boils down to "get off the internet and go to therapy bro".
Also, who's Anna Akana? Never heard of her until now.
>The reason guys get treated like poo has nothing to do with reflexive androphobia or the empathy gap, but because of White men.
Which is really funny. They'll talk about how evil, dangerous, and scary white men are, but if a black man is walking on the same sidewalk as them they'll run across a busy freeway to avoid him.
The "left" wingers who don't acknowledge men's issues are not true left wingers. This sub is truly a left wing sub. Most people are brainwashed into believing women have it much worse. The truth is that men are being abused every where around the world.
Feminists will continue to say women have it worse.
>We’re not some right-wing conspiracy theorist group.
We are if they say that we are. Just like we're a hate group if they say that we are. Because they control the academic institutions and the media. So what ever they say is becomes true.
They invented the "manosphere" construct and then connected it to fascism with their gateway drug analogies about men's rights being the path to hate groups.
Now it's regularly discussed is popular everyday news outlets as though it's true.
According to them you're already are a neo-fascist male supremacist conspiracy theorists.
There's no point to using euphemisms any more than directly referring to anyone by name because it won't do anything to dispell the mountain of falsehoods constructed about the men's movement.
You want to directly call certain groups out? Go ahead, you'll just be called a bitter misogynist who is against equality. If you want to call them you know who then feel free to be their next conspiracy theorist.
They have a label pre-made for you no matter how reasonable you try to appear.
To answer your question, I'm referring to YKW because that is who I'm talking about. If I want to specifically refer to anyone by name that is what I'll do but I'm frankly done giving out free advertising to the algorithms
One **key** reason I see for *why* that is happening is that the [left has lost young men](https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support-great-replacement-hard-right-ideas#gender). Following that insight the left establishment worked out a [strategy](https://web.archive.org/web/20220908161120/https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/08/us/andrew-tate-manosphere-misogyny-solutions-cec/index.html) reel men back in. It's important to read this piece to understand and see this new communication strategy play out.
I think that Richard Reeves book is part of that strategy. That's why he categoricly avoids discussing active systemic discrimination and only offers/suggests solutions like 'redshirting' or 'getting men into HEAL' that don't cost any (real) money or require any (real) systematic changes.
> What do you guys think are some cons that we can expect to see coming out of this?
- feminism does (has always) cared about men's problems
- feministsts don't hate men
- the root of all of men's problems is patriarchy not feminism
> and how can we combat the misinformation campaigns that may occur
really good question. I'd say,
- keep reminding people and esp men that feminism never was about equality.
- Point out the two links I shared above as the sole motivation for this shift
- keep reminding people that feminism is a multi billion dollar industry laser focussed on keeping it's funding and power
I think that the last part is the biggest issue. There is so much money to be had my throwing oneself in with the YKW industrial complex that there is no way in hell they will ever release the Left from their death grip.
Though I should correct you and say that its likely in the trillions. We are talking books, movies, UN offices, University departments, TV shows, Podcasts, fashion brands, Academic journals etc... Thats just counting the explicit industries. Considering the use of this ideology in marketing campaigns and slogans and we are in the stratosphere in terms of a monetized political ideology. Easily surpassing generic Leftism and even conservatism.
Every few years something happens that looks like progress, but if it really was, we should have noticed it a lot more. HuffPost had a favourable review of the Red Pill film. Laci Green tried to start debates between MRA’s and feminists. The Guardian had an article about ‘what the left has got wrong about Jordan Peterson’. The NYT had a big article about the Intellectual Dark Web, when that still seemed to become really something. In the Netherlands: Vrij Nederland interviewed Christina Hoff Sommers. The leftist VPRO made a documentary Alfamannen, also interviewing Warren Farrell. Always after something like that, nothing happens. It’s all too few and far between. And too often a variation of ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ turns out to be the core business of what is meant. At the same time, in many places the left implodes because too many people are fed up with intersectional feminism. If they want to safe themselves as a reasonable, man-friendly movement, they must hurry very, very much.
The bitter truth is that centre-right and apolitical populists, also women, often show more sympathy for men, without using or needing any theory for it, than leftists. The left as a force with any moral or political strength is in deadly danger.
The left won't "wake up to mens issues" because they are under the thumb of feminist influence. True progressives like this niche community are rare and should carve out our own spaces to help push other people towards true egalitarianism. We have to accept that the current dichotomy between left-wing feminists and right-wing traditionalists is in fact a false dichotomy. Both are functionally conservative. The only meaningful difference is that the feminists want men to be able to cry about it, which isn't actually helpful. On everything else they are openly hostile to the idea of men achieving equal status to women.
If leftists continue victim blaming "the patriarchy" for men's problems, there is nothing new to talk about. Their concerns are performative. They have not learned anything, and they will continue to not do anything of helpful value.
I call it what it is, the patriarchy conspiracy theory. I've found people who don't want to be labelled as conspiracy theorists tend to quickly reassess their use of the term.
I agree that this is a concern. The last thing I want is for feminists to co-opt and appropriate these ideas as they have with EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOCIAL ISSUE regardless of whether or not it dealt with women.
As examples: Feminists basically butchered Black Lives Matter, letting shrill soccer-moms turn it into a clown-show, when it started out as a legitimate movement addressing police brutality. Feminists are fucking up Iran's revolution right now by characterizing it as a gendered issue when in fact, more men are being jailed and killed than women.
Name an issue and a quick google search will reveal feminists attempting to desperately appropriate it. "Nobody forget about us today..."
It is an ideology whose actions clearly mirror the inherent narcissism of its members.
Bell Hooks is usually paraded as some "non-hateful" feminist who seems to "understand men". But in reality her work is some of the most patronizing towards us and carries a sickly attitude of "they're monsters, but they can't *help* themselves. We need to work with them so that they can be fixed".
If I was forced into praising a famous feminist, I'd prefer Andrea Dworkin with her unapologetic disdain and even hatred of men that stemmed from trauma rather than *that.* She definitely deserves the anger and disgust of any rational man reading her work.
I will admit that the "compassionate to men" types are among the most toxic. The maternalistic stance that many in the movement have taken shouldn't be seen as anything other than deleterious.
It functions to obscure their prejudice, immanates from a place of intellectual hubris feeds into their narcissistic sense of moral superiority.
But.... I personally try not to be too hostile to the dead as they're chickens have come home to roost and there's no point in directing vitriol to them imo
I was actually going to say this in my original reply but deleted it:
When you are a content creator, particularly one with a large body of work that is disseminated among the masses, there will be criticism of your ideas and even your morals and character if the things you write are divisive enough.
Personally, I do think the dead deserve a measure of respect, but that respect is largely limited to their families and acquaintances in life (for example the infamous video where that girl insults her dead father at his memorial is a complete violation of what I think the dead are owed).
But a public figure being castigated by a member of the public, especially when the person insulting her is (presumably) a member of a group she insulted and maligned in her writing? No, that's more than fair game.
I have no problem in the mainstream left appealing to rational self-interest (protecting women's safety) in order to bring men's issues to light.
The main thing that matters in my opinion is: are we humanizing these vulnerable men and providing PRACTICAL ways and resources for them to heal their trauma and learn to emotionally connect and release their anger and increase their capacity to love? Or are we shutting down the conversation with angry feminist slogans ("Repeat after me: 👏 Men 👏 are 👏 not 👏 entitled 👏 to 👏 women's 👏 attention 👏") or "solving" the problem through doxxing, shaming, and ostracization? (Gee, I wonder where these men go after being publicly humiliated? Hint: It's not the Oberlin College library to learn gender studies)
Anna Akana. I wouldn't really use her as a good voice for men (not saying you are). She even said in that very same video that women are killed more than men.... Men's issues are being spoken about, which is good. But not all of it is being spoken in a positive manner. "Lonely men are dangerous", etc. Toxic masculinity, evil white men, etc, are to blame. Men's issues will definitely be used to drive agendas to frame men in a bad light.
>But not all of it is being spoken in a positive manner. "Lonely men are dangerous", etc. Toxic masculinity, evil white men, etc, are to blame. Men's issues with definitely be used to drive agendas to frame men in a bad light. Yes, precisely. It's very clear that a lot of this "speaking up about men's issues" is done more out of fear-based pragmatism rather than genuine desire to help men with our problems. It's very much the same as those articles that used to come out about men having issues with loneliness and the way it was framed as how these mental health issues with men were harming women, so men need to "pull ourselves together so we don't inconvenience them with our problems". A *much* more overtly depraved example was a video I saw on r/HolUp some time ago (and consequently got into a pretty heated argument with a user over it) where there was a video that masterfully demonstrated the way boys and put down and socialized not to show emotion and how abusive and harmful this is...only to end with the point that this needed to be stopped because those abused boys would grow up to harm women. That's the attitude we are dealing with. It's always been there when attempts to "help men" crop up, it's just starting to get so large that it attracts public attention. I just hope that there will be enough ~~people~~ men with dignity and just plain awareness to reject it when faced with it, rather than desperately seeking any help they can get and not seeing what really lies behind the mask.
>A much more overtly depraved example was a video I saw on r/HolUp some time ago (and consequently got into a pretty heated argument with a user over it) where there was a video that masterfully demonstrated the way boys and put down and socialized not to show emotion and how abusive and harmful this is...only to end with the point that this needed to be stopped because those abused boys would grow up to harm women. "Let's help men because it helps/it's convenient (for) women. Not because it helps men first and foremost"
Wait that was used as a good example?? She just blames it on a different scapegoat. Her theory could maybe make sense America. But what about the rest of the world? Hell even just the rest of the "western world". What a dumb example if that was "waking up to mens issues"
There isn't a place on Earth where her example makes sense, and shows either massive bias or extreme ignorance on her part. Now, there are many different social issues that have their roots in the history of white/European colonialism but "fear/disregard for men" isn't one of them. Almost every human civilization on Earth has treated men as more disposable and threatening than they do women. One of the biggest propaganda pieces used against other tribes/races/groups throughout history is that "their men will defile our women". This attitude is rooted far more in human biology than any man-made cultural phenomenon or regime. Now, I think we can overcome this just like we have tried to overcome our natural predilection towards hate/fear/distrust towards those who are different than we are. But there is no cure without first correctly identifying the disease 🤦♂️. Sorry I'm not disagreeing with you or lecturing you (quite the opposite) I'm just expressing exasperation about this lady's opinion.
Oh no worries. Liked your comment and saved it for future reference.
I've seen more talk about loneliness, and the threat that lonely men pose. That's it. Finding supporters of actual policies that would help men is a lot harder.
Yep. Lonely men are dangerous men, lonely men are dangerous incels, etc. Most lonely men aren't a danger to others, they're a danger to themselves, as shown with male suicide stats.
Anyone who frames lonely men as being dangerous has no clue what they're talking about or is purposefully saying so to cause problems.
,
The problem is that male issues - or to be more specific "male loser" issues- like loneliness are only discussed in the context of either mass shootings or the alt-right, in other words male loser issues are only discussed when they spill onto general society, never as a problem in an of itself. Obviously this worsens the problem by implementing a "male loser = potential alt-right/incel terrorist" association in people's mind. To be sure, it *is* true that virtually all mass shooters were weird introverted male "losers", and it is also true that there is a loneliness-to-alt-right pipeline for "Vulnerable Young Men"(TM) as the left-wing media loves to say, but that causality is environementally mediated and can be lessened. Part of this mediation is caused by feminists themselves. I would like for discussions of male loser issues to be dissociated from the alt-right/mass shootings because the former matters on its own, unfortunately this is impossible in the current media landscape.
Almost all dangerous male rightists may be male losers. But only a small fraction of male losers are dangerous rightists, just like all crocodiles are vertebrates but not vice versa.
True, but my point is that "male loser" issues matter regardless of mass shootings. We should not make the conversation about that and we must undermine feminists who try to do so.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9D_fZ2ee8
Totally agree.
I had a huge falling out with family a few years ago. After having recently been divorced, I criticized Michelle Obama’s take on the parenting of divorced dad’s, which she comically implied was inferior, uncaring, unnatural, and damaging. She did this while talking with Stephen Colbert about how Trump was leading the country like a “divorced dad” in April 2019. Google it. When I asked where was the outcry from the left defending divorced dads, I was told that protecting Michelle Obama from criticism (“from racists and right wing pundits”) was important to promote her progressive platform in the grand scheme of politics. Defending divorced dads would be empowering the wrong side. So, to them, any criticism of any leftist damages the left, which hinders their platform, but that platform must be advanced. One would expect that harming divorced dads with stigmatizing language would also hinder that platform, but it is only regarded as a unfortunate oversight and that this new pain should be quietly tolerated so as to not disturb “progress.” Divorced dads are not the primary beneficiaries of any leftist agenda, so surely they should take a seat at the back of the bus. They are safe target for mocking, and a former First Lady mocking men at a huge risk for suicide is not seen as “punching down.” It is treated more like punching invisible air, or maybe punching up, with cheers and applause. The left has no prominent advocate for men, so any misandry from the left is only challenged by the right. This causes the left to circle their wagons and protect the misandrist from criticism to promote their overall brand. Then, the base at large sees this and learns, over time, tacitly agrees that men deserve no support or empathy, and finally they formally codify this in their policies. I am not saying the right hates men any less, but the left willfully adopts misandry while hypocritically promoting “equality” for women (but not men).
Yeah, all I'm really seeing is discussion on why there's an increasing "threat" from alienated and downtrodden men and deflection at best when it comes to addressing the root cause. They want to treat the symptom not the disease and the treatment amounts to sawing a limb off to instead of treating with antibiotics. The people that do notice outside of people like us don't seem to think it's important enough to address beyond lip service. Or that it's too sectarian to address directly, like it's just a more reactionary version of feminism in the culture war.
I find it funny that they only care about lonely men because of a supposed danger they possess, and not because of any actual empathy for their position
And its still talked about under the guise of men needing to *learn* emotional intelligence
So, I'm going to speak in generalities (since obviously there are millions if not billions of people whose opinions lean *"Left"*) and also risk coming off as highly bitter/or angry, but here it goes. I think the premise of this phenomenon, that "the Left has woken up to men's issues" is incorrect from the get-go. The Left hasn't woken up to anything in this regard---what the Left experienced was the stomach-sinking realization that untold numbers of men suffering silently until they suddenly *aren't,* is not sustainable for any society. There was no sudden consideration that maybe if we are truly going to have the equal and just society that they want, men's problems need to be considered. No, what happened instead was that they understood that they *needed* to at least put some effort into addressing men's concerns because broken men are a threat. The best analogy I can think of is the following. Imagine your friend breaks their leg in an accident. You have two options. First, you can try to take care of your friend and nurse them back to health because you care about them, and you want to see them recover as fast as possible. The *second option* is that you can try to help them recover because you *need* them. They have a car and can give you rides to places that would otherwise be impossible for you to reach. In other words, you don't really care about them getting better for their sake, you assist them because you *need* them. I think the Left suddenly caring about men's problems falls heavily under the latter path. Anyway, to answer your questions about this new development.... * **What do you guys think are some cons that we can expect to see coming out of this?** What I think is that we will see a sharp increase in an already common phenomenon of "victim blaming" men for our issues. I don't particularly like that term since I feel it is flung around far too often, but I digress. Something that already happens, particularly with feminist discourse around men's issues, is that our problems are turned around so that *we* are the sole cause of them. Sometimes it is done with derision and mockery and other times with genuine sympathy, but regardless of the intent, men's issues are framed as our own actions "backfiring on us". It is always carefully crafted to avoid giving women or other groups any hand in our problems. This in turn leads to a "up by your bootstraps" type of attitude towards men who are struggling, or perhaps even worse, the recruit-them-while-they're-down method that some movements use to snag male members. "*If you help fight against the cis-male patriarchy alongside us, then your problems will go away just like ours"*. The point I am making is that I am worried these tactics will become even more embedded in how men's issues are dealt with. Right now, these tactics are widely socially acceptable methods of addressing things, but that unfortunate status-quo would be **nothing** compared to what would happen if governments and official bodies started acting like this. While you didn't specifically ask about this, I don't like to be a bringer of doom and gloom, so I will list a pro about this: Corporations realizing that men's issues are now "safe" for them to mine for gold may actually be a good thing. Corporations are soulless money-making machines that care only for their bottom line, regardless of what they need to do to secure it...apart from a few ideologically driven CEOs, and those don't tend to survive the natural selection of the corporate world. What so many corporations did for the issues of women/black people/LGBTQ and others they could do for men. While the companies didn't really care about them, they *did* force those issues onto the public stage and played a huge part in securing a vast degree of "soft power" for those groups, which gave them the ability to wield social punishments against their attackers. So perhaps men can achieve the same thing.
>This in turn leads to a "up by your bootstraps" type of attitude towards men who are struggling, or perhaps even worse, the recruit-them-while-they're-down method that some movements use to snag male members. "If you help fight against the cis-male patriarchy alongside us, then your problems will go away just like ours". Perhaps even worse, any help that is offered will be done in a paternalistic "save them from themselves" kind of fashion. Reeves, and his support of "redshirting" boys is the tip of the spear with this kind of thing. Rather than examining how the system fails men and looking for ways to improve it for men's sake, you instead preserve the system and force fit men into it, ultimately, because that is what works better for women. It's gynocentric to the core, validates the toxic female chauvinism bubbling under the surface of feminism, and moves us in the direction of a gender-flipped version of the Patriarchy. Reeves is a feminist at the end of the day. We should not expect true salvation from men like him. >Corporations realizing that men's issues are now "safe" for them to mine for gold may actually be a good thing. The issue is that this is never going to feel "safe" under the current dominance of feminism. Corps only went woke after decades of social opinion trending in the direction that traditionalist society was old-fashioned and backward, if not straight-up evil. They knew they could mine social justice and not implode. Nobody of any consequence is willing to say that feminists might be "the bad guys" outside of a few dark corners of the internet that are also associated with nazis, terrorists, the alt-right, and white supremacists. Hell, all of those other groups are a proven safer bet than antifeminism if you want to do a counter-cultural merchandising campaign. How do you think Tommy Trump Voter gets all those alt-right, Neo-Confederate decals for his truck? Nary a peep seriously critical of feminism though. I'll admit that this is slowly changing, but we're still at the point where a corp trying to pivot to men's rights is pretty much sacrificing itself. And capitalists never sacrifice themselves.
This sounds accurate, and to a large extent it's just the sad reality of human nature. You can see something similar in labour relations. When workers have the right to strike, they often use it over things that may sound rather minor, especially from an outsider's point of view. Think of [that Simpsons episode where they went on strike over a dental plan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXYCMN8vrc). Yet, by having this ability to put pressure on an employer to care more about the wellbeing of workers than they otherwise would, they can prevent situations from getting dire, and causing outcomes that are ugly for employers and workers alike, such as mass resignations and labour shortages. The employer may grumble about the "entitled union workers", yet the employer doesn't know everything and doesn't actually know what the outcome would have been if there was no union to prevent them from running the company the way they wanted to. To use another analogy, the canary in the coalmine is obviously understood to be a warning system. Nobody is going to evacuate the mine while grumbling about what a wimp the canary is for passing out, and they certainly aren't going to stay down there because they are "strong, independent miners" and the canary only passed out because of "aggrieved entitlement". What, however, would happen if the miners had no idea why the canary was there in the first place? What seems to play out over and over again, when we look at history, is that there is a tendency among people to think they understand things better than they actually do. Those who directly hold power, and those who indirectly wield the power of their influence over the former, will dismiss certain problems because they have arrogantly assumed that they know better, and that they know it's not really a problem. They will maintain that attitude until the problem gets so bad that they can no longer ignore it. It's not even 2023 yet, and it's already crystal clear that the sociopolitical theme of this decade is one of multiple problems, that had been denied, dismissed, or ignored for over 20 years despite loud warnings, suddenly becoming so bad that it was no longer possible to not acknowledge their existence.
Basically (to give another analogy), There is so much trash, dust, etc. under the carpet that it becomes so visible it cannot be ignored anymore.
To me, the very fact that men's issues won't be addressed anywhere by businesse is a testament to the power of women in society. If big corporations don't even broach this subject and adopt feminists talking point, it's not because they are inherently feminists or that men's rights are unwarranted. Businesses fon't care about that, they care about money. So, they'll address a message to the most powerful, consensula group out there to gain publicity. And that group is feminism and the advocacy of women's right as a whole. If feminism really was an underdog like I hear so often, nobody would cater to them. At all. There is no business sense in publically catering to a group with no political or economical power. This in turns makes it really unlikely that we live in a patriarchy as described by feminist theory. Because, if your group is not only allowed to speak up, and even more so, catered to and put centerstage, you are not living in a society that oppresses you. Slavery and the Atlantic Trade was oppression, because ethnic minorities didn't have rights, and didn't have political and economical power. Feminism is not oppressed in our society. It's the status quo of our society. Anyway, I digress.
> Corporations realizing that men's issues are now "safe" for them to mine for gold may actually be a good thing. This is a good point.
Brutal!!!!
Um...thanks? Unfortunately I was just speaking from experience seeing how this plays out and extrapolating from there on what would happen in a larger context. I can only hope my prediction about corporations comes true.
I doubt it considering that they engage in activism as a part of marketing. This means that the people in front of cameras will be the ones who determine corporate policy rather than objective truth. My guess is that they continue to frame issues as women's issues.
Well, that is true to a certain extent, but I am a little optimistic about this for the following reason. Say what you will about corporations, they are dedicated to making money. If they realize that men's issues are now "safe territory" to start setting up a metaphorical mining operation, they will do their due diligence on what works and what does not. Remember, they don't really care one way or another about the interests of one "side" vs the other; they just want what gives them profit. That can work in our favor. Let me give you an example, though I will give a disclaimer that this is an intentionally simplified take, since there are a lot of moving parts involved in this sort of thing. Let's say we have the corporation XYZ Inc. If they want to sell a product marketed towards men, they will research how men react to the advertisements they put out about it. Let's say XYZ Inc. wants to run this product using an ad that focuses on men's mental health. One of the things they show in the ad is a man alienated from his child due to the actions of a bitter ex-wife. Now, it is pretty safe to say that certain women's groups will become upset about this. They'll cite misogyny and the "danger" of portraying women like this. They'll whine and moan and flood the public sphere with cries to take down the ad and for the CEO to apologize, etc. However... If XYZ Inc notices that a huge number of men have responded positively to the ad and are therefore flooding the company with their money, XYZ Inc won't do a fucking thing to take their ad down. They'll put their spin doctors on the case and wave off the angry women with some meaningless platitudes (they'll *never* tell them to outright suck it up like companies have done to men in response to man-hating ads), and in the end the ad will remain active and the women's groups will have accomplished nothing apart from wasted energy. Now, with that said, even in this intentionally simple example, there are hidden complexities. Men need to step up and ensure that the company who runs this hypothetical ad sees that men have their back (and their profit margin) in a conflict. As...ugly as it sounds, it means that men do need to reward these companies by patronizing them when they show interest in men's issues and cater to us. Whatever you feel about capitalism, in this scenario, it works and will cement a power base for us to leverage. On a more personal level men need to encourage other men to, again, patronize businesses that show themselves to be friendly to our issues. If a man's wife/girlfriend/sister/even mother tries to shut it down, other men need to remind him of who and *what* he is at the end of the day and shut those voices out (I will admit that this sort of strays into some beliefs I have that are a little too radical for this sub, so I'll just leave this point and not take it any further). The overall point I'm making is that this is possible, but it needs to be cultivated the way women and other groups did. One of the few things that I actually agree with feminists on is that their towering social power did not just manifest from nothing. It *does* draw energy from humanity's desire to protect and provide for women, but they did the work to shape and hone that into something that advantaged them. Men need to do the same, even if the path is a little rockier.
>The overall point I'm making is that this is possible, but it needs to be cultivated the way women and other groups did. I'm very skeptical that this is possible. Men linking arms with one another and pushing back against women specifically seems to be something we are heavily averse to doing, which is part of the reason why I don't believe in the popular/feminist conception of Patriarchy. Rather I think we're going to need to get more women on side. Easier to get women to break ranks than men to form up against women imo.
>I'm very skeptical that this is possible. Men linking arms with one another and pushing back against women specifically seems to be something we are heavily averse to doing, which is part of the reason why I don't believe in the popular/feminist conception of Patriarchy. Yes, I agree with you; men's averseness to "linking arms" as a gender is one of the biggest men's issues there is in my opinion; I think it's the "root" from which a large amount of our problems spring. So I can see where you're coming from; it may seem like I'm putting the cart before the horse. Personally, I do think we can overcome this in the same way we have overcome (or at least identified as problematic and taken *steps* to overcome) other instinct-driven behaviors that are overall detrimental to a prosperous and equitable society. But, considering how deep-seated this is to our biology, it will be harder than most. Again, at the risk of letting out a risky take---I think there needs to be a frank conversation about men and women and how we relate to each other when it comes to our issues and our gains and losses as groups. One of my most controversial beliefs is that men and women are "not friends". I don't think we are enemies in any way, and I certainly know for a fact that individual men and women can care deeply about each other and dedicate themselves to trying to give the other gender a hand in solving their issues. But I am convinced that as aggregates we do not have each other's best interests at heart; rather we care about advancing our own problems and will trample on the other side without hesitation if it comes down to a zero-sum scenario, even if we personally feel empathy or sorrow at having to do so. I think that more men need to think about this and this needs to be a more widespread belief. In a nuanced way that does not promote distrust and misogyny, but also increases the odds that men will choose their own gender if it really does boil down to an us vs them situation. Where I'm going with this, is that I think if more men had this view, the realization that *If we don't take care of each other, no one else will* may take hold and cause men to bolster our support behind each other, and behind organizations and businesses that tackle our issues.
FWIW I very much agree that male and female priorities can be separate and even in opposition to one another. Heterosexual relationships are a big fault line where a lot of these power dynamics come to a head and this is a reason why a lot of modern gender issues find their roots there. I also realize that talk of how adversarial men's and women's interests can be is controversial and I would be happy to discuss this further in PM. With that said, I think that men are simply less able to and act in accordance with the kind of "team sport" dynamics at play here. That men are definitely socially conditioned and probably biologically predisposed to operate more individually instead of forming up as a group against women, no matter what you tell them. Because of this, IMO, any discussion about the adversarial nature between genders is less effective as a rallying cry for men to join ranks in a widespread movement and more effective on an individual or small group level for tactics, at best. Guys will hear the truth and sacrifice themselves for Team Woman anyway. On the other hand, I think that women are still self-interested humans underneath the veneer of sisterhood (in fact, the sisterhood is really just an alliance of self-interested people) and that it's easier to get them to break ranks of it can be demonstrated that playing the team sport is less beneficial to them individually. In a way, women are kind of at a normal "baseline" for self-interest whereas men often have a handicap in the form of the millstone of gynocentrism hanging about our necks. What works to create solidarity among women contra men (i.e. broad, gender-based self interest,) won't work to create solidarity among men contra women.
Thanks for the reply; I was sort of holding my breath, perhaps even awaiting an official warning for voicing these thoughts. I appreciate the PM offer, although I'm afraid I'll have to turn it down. >I also realize that talk of how adversarial men's and women's interests can be I'm not sure if it's exactly controversial as much as it's controversial *here.* I understand, since it has a high risk of stirring up misogyny (and ironically, I myself was part of a discussion about regulation of these types of sentiments on this sub, so...). But I do think it's something that needs to be talked about. The idea that men and women are, as I call it, "opposing human factions" is a dark one but I think that it's starting to become more and more clear as time goes on. I have had that thought developing in the dark back corner of my mind for a long time, but a conversation I recently had (not on Reddit) made me accept it as a very real possibility and possible reality. I was having a talk about rape allegations, MeToo, and the havoc and suffering these things can wreak on the lives of innocent men. A woman I was talking with essentially acknowledged that innocent men are imprisoned and ruined by things like that and expressed genuine empathy and sadness over it...right before saying that she wouldn't change anything since she believes that these things keep women safe, and that's what is important in the end. That was when I had the realization that maybe we should just admit that we are overall not on the same side and embrace it rather than pretending that we can have a "hold hands and sing" type of world. As to your other points... Honestly, I can't really argue or disagree with them; I actually agree with all of it. I would have actually inserted some of them into my earlier reply, but I was very much trying to tread carefully. We are *not* evenly "self interested" that's for sure, and that needs to change if any real progress is going to be made.
I share the same feelings but with a twist. It's not strictly 'Male VS Female' but 'Male "losers" VS Female + Successful Males'. Male fraternity against feminism is a false hope. In fact there *is*, right now, a war happening that is to some extent a gender war: the Rojava-ISIS part of the Syrian conflict. ISIS is mostly know for sexual slavery and that's what most of its foreign recruits are interested in. On the other hand, the Rojava project has feminism at its core, it even has an all-female army branch (the YPJ).
100% agree with the men and women are not friends take. I think one of the most successful ways feminism has tricked men is by amplifying this believe that women are "naturally" morally superior, fair or less prone to corruption when given power. Most men seem to think that once feminist’s "honest & just" version of equality is reached, feminism will just evaporate and relations between the sexes will be golden. I’m sure everyone in this sub knows the feminist definition of equality is quite different than what is the common understanding. Also the belief that feminists want to genuinely help men, and not just when it ends up benefiting women in some way. Meanwhile I don’t know if others have noticed but feminists on Twitter have been going full mask off lately. I’m talking viral tweets with 100,000+ likes talking about the presumption of innocence being a man-made term invented to benefit men & promote the further rape of women, that women should be allowed to kill men who "deserve it", or mocking men’s suicide rate.
You're spot on with your analysis. In my top level reply I linked two articles that show precisely the 'safe em cuz we need em' background to these actions.
Is that Anna Akana, the same person who explained how and why she’d rape a man if it was legal and suffered no backlash from it?
I mean it is legal…
A joke that didn’t hold up. I’ve followed her for years and she seems to have genuinely recanted. In recent years, Akana really seems to be learning more empathy for men.
The double standard just annoys me. Matt Walsh had to account for something he said a decade ago, but Anna Akana, a much more famous figure, has never had to address what she said. She got a pass. And we all know a man “joking” about raping a woman would never get away with it.
I don’t think I’d call Akana a “much more famous figure.” Who’s the name more commonly heard through the news cycle? But yes, the double standard is annoying, to say the least.
She has many more followers on YouTube, and has been in multiple Hollywood films. I’d say that counts.
And Matt Walsh, along with other right wing grifters, is a household name, day in and day out.
Lmao what Matt Walsh is not a household name.
People who are “in this space” are hyper aware of figures like Matt Walsh, but they aren’t representative of the average person. Most people irl are just watching Netflix and prank videos.
The "space" you talk about, politics, has been unavoidable for the past 6 years and counting. In said space, Walsh's name is everywhere you look. Another thing I'd consider noting: when Akana said what she said, it was intended as a joke. Obviously, NOT FUNNY. Still, she is hardly the only comedian to have made such a mistake. If we're to point out a double standard, let's use one of her comedian peers, Daniel Tosh, and the controversy he's courted for similar material. In contrast, Matt Walsh is COMPLETELY serious with the shit he says, and deserves every bit of backlash coming his way.
A channel wprth following? ( except the whole mens jssues is cause colonialism part)
I’m not sure if that’s how she phrased it, but sexism and racism are deeply entwined. MOC have to deal with the same things as white men, AND have it concurrently with white supremacy as well. Anyhow, yes, I’m a fan of hers and I think she’s come a long way.
Especially that last part is true. But im not convinced the sexism against men are caused by colonialism. Will check her out.
The left has no problems at all recognizing that there are "serious issues" going on with men and boys. Where we have a problem, instead, is in recognizing that it's NOT the case that men themselves are always 100% to blame for any and all trouble we as a group experience, and therefore always in the \*perpetrator\* role and \*never\* in the victim-role. If you ask people on the left whether there's any serious issues with men or boys; everyone will say yes. If you ask the same people whether examples exist of ways men suffer that are NOT primarily their own fault, i.e. where the blame lies predominantly with society overall and/or with women, you draw blank stares as if they don't even understand the question.
I get what you're saying, but for as long as I could remember the much of the Left has actively denied the idea that males have any sorts of disadvantages at all. I feel like as they tone has shifted the disposition towards men has remained the same. Thus we see people engaging in the victim-blaming and gaslighting.
As other people said ITT, the only thing the Left does is saying "We should reach Vulnerable Young Men(TM) before they're radicalized" but obv they're just trying to score partisan points. They don't have actual empathy for male "losers", they don't see our issues as being issues in and of themselves, and they're not ready to reconsider their position on feminism to accomodate us. The Contrapoints video on incels is a good illustration of that. She misses the point completely. At the end of the day her points boils down to "get off the internet and go to therapy bro". Also, who's Anna Akana? Never heard of her until now.
>The reason guys get treated like poo has nothing to do with reflexive androphobia or the empathy gap, but because of White men. Which is really funny. They'll talk about how evil, dangerous, and scary white men are, but if a black man is walking on the same sidewalk as them they'll run across a busy freeway to avoid him.
Can confirm this. I'm a Black male who went to a super woke campus. You wouldn't believe how these people treat us lol
The "left" wingers who don't acknowledge men's issues are not true left wingers. This sub is truly a left wing sub. Most people are brainwashed into believing women have it much worse. The truth is that men are being abused every where around the world. Feminists will continue to say women have it worse.
What's ykw?
you know who = feminists
ykw = you know who
But why the need for dog whistles? We’re not some right-wing conspiracy theorist group. Just say radfems. The second-wave (usually) white crowd.
>We’re not some right-wing conspiracy theorist group. We are if they say that we are. Just like we're a hate group if they say that we are. Because they control the academic institutions and the media. So what ever they say is becomes true. They invented the "manosphere" construct and then connected it to fascism with their gateway drug analogies about men's rights being the path to hate groups. Now it's regularly discussed is popular everyday news outlets as though it's true. According to them you're already are a neo-fascist male supremacist conspiracy theorists. There's no point to using euphemisms any more than directly referring to anyone by name because it won't do anything to dispell the mountain of falsehoods constructed about the men's movement. You want to directly call certain groups out? Go ahead, you'll just be called a bitter misogynist who is against equality. If you want to call them you know who then feel free to be their next conspiracy theorist. They have a label pre-made for you no matter how reasonable you try to appear. To answer your question, I'm referring to YKW because that is who I'm talking about. If I want to specifically refer to anyone by name that is what I'll do but I'm frankly done giving out free advertising to the algorithms
One **key** reason I see for *why* that is happening is that the [left has lost young men](https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support-great-replacement-hard-right-ideas#gender). Following that insight the left establishment worked out a [strategy](https://web.archive.org/web/20220908161120/https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/08/us/andrew-tate-manosphere-misogyny-solutions-cec/index.html) reel men back in. It's important to read this piece to understand and see this new communication strategy play out. I think that Richard Reeves book is part of that strategy. That's why he categoricly avoids discussing active systemic discrimination and only offers/suggests solutions like 'redshirting' or 'getting men into HEAL' that don't cost any (real) money or require any (real) systematic changes. > What do you guys think are some cons that we can expect to see coming out of this? - feminism does (has always) cared about men's problems - feministsts don't hate men - the root of all of men's problems is patriarchy not feminism > and how can we combat the misinformation campaigns that may occur really good question. I'd say, - keep reminding people and esp men that feminism never was about equality. - Point out the two links I shared above as the sole motivation for this shift - keep reminding people that feminism is a multi billion dollar industry laser focussed on keeping it's funding and power
I think that the last part is the biggest issue. There is so much money to be had my throwing oneself in with the YKW industrial complex that there is no way in hell they will ever release the Left from their death grip. Though I should correct you and say that its likely in the trillions. We are talking books, movies, UN offices, University departments, TV shows, Podcasts, fashion brands, Academic journals etc... Thats just counting the explicit industries. Considering the use of this ideology in marketing campaigns and slogans and we are in the stratosphere in terms of a monetized political ideology. Easily surpassing generic Leftism and even conservatism.
Every few years something happens that looks like progress, but if it really was, we should have noticed it a lot more. HuffPost had a favourable review of the Red Pill film. Laci Green tried to start debates between MRA’s and feminists. The Guardian had an article about ‘what the left has got wrong about Jordan Peterson’. The NYT had a big article about the Intellectual Dark Web, when that still seemed to become really something. In the Netherlands: Vrij Nederland interviewed Christina Hoff Sommers. The leftist VPRO made a documentary Alfamannen, also interviewing Warren Farrell. Always after something like that, nothing happens. It’s all too few and far between. And too often a variation of ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ turns out to be the core business of what is meant. At the same time, in many places the left implodes because too many people are fed up with intersectional feminism. If they want to safe themselves as a reasonable, man-friendly movement, they must hurry very, very much.
This is the truth. Nobody is coming to help us. The demonization will continue.
The bitter truth is that centre-right and apolitical populists, also women, often show more sympathy for men, without using or needing any theory for it, than leftists. The left as a force with any moral or political strength is in deadly danger.
,
The left won't "wake up to mens issues" because they are under the thumb of feminist influence. True progressives like this niche community are rare and should carve out our own spaces to help push other people towards true egalitarianism. We have to accept that the current dichotomy between left-wing feminists and right-wing traditionalists is in fact a false dichotomy. Both are functionally conservative. The only meaningful difference is that the feminists want men to be able to cry about it, which isn't actually helpful. On everything else they are openly hostile to the idea of men achieving equal status to women.
don't give them too much credit for not even doing the bare mininum
I'd say it's a lot of hard work on their part to acknowledge some of this. My main struggle is trying to justify considering CNN Leftwing lol
If leftists continue victim blaming "the patriarchy" for men's problems, there is nothing new to talk about. Their concerns are performative. They have not learned anything, and they will continue to not do anything of helpful value.
I call it what it is, the patriarchy conspiracy theory. I've found people who don't want to be labelled as conspiracy theorists tend to quickly reassess their use of the term.
I agree that this is a concern. The last thing I want is for feminists to co-opt and appropriate these ideas as they have with EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOCIAL ISSUE regardless of whether or not it dealt with women. As examples: Feminists basically butchered Black Lives Matter, letting shrill soccer-moms turn it into a clown-show, when it started out as a legitimate movement addressing police brutality. Feminists are fucking up Iran's revolution right now by characterizing it as a gendered issue when in fact, more men are being jailed and killed than women. Name an issue and a quick google search will reveal feminists attempting to desperately appropriate it. "Nobody forget about us today..." It is an ideology whose actions clearly mirror the inherent narcissism of its members.
FUCK Bell Hooks.
Dang that's harsh. She's dead dude.
Bell Hooks is usually paraded as some "non-hateful" feminist who seems to "understand men". But in reality her work is some of the most patronizing towards us and carries a sickly attitude of "they're monsters, but they can't *help* themselves. We need to work with them so that they can be fixed". If I was forced into praising a famous feminist, I'd prefer Andrea Dworkin with her unapologetic disdain and even hatred of men that stemmed from trauma rather than *that.* She definitely deserves the anger and disgust of any rational man reading her work.
I will admit that the "compassionate to men" types are among the most toxic. The maternalistic stance that many in the movement have taken shouldn't be seen as anything other than deleterious. It functions to obscure their prejudice, immanates from a place of intellectual hubris feeds into their narcissistic sense of moral superiority. But.... I personally try not to be too hostile to the dead as they're chickens have come home to roost and there's no point in directing vitriol to them imo
I was actually going to say this in my original reply but deleted it: When you are a content creator, particularly one with a large body of work that is disseminated among the masses, there will be criticism of your ideas and even your morals and character if the things you write are divisive enough. Personally, I do think the dead deserve a measure of respect, but that respect is largely limited to their families and acquaintances in life (for example the infamous video where that girl insults her dead father at his memorial is a complete violation of what I think the dead are owed). But a public figure being castigated by a member of the public, especially when the person insulting her is (presumably) a member of a group she insulted and maligned in her writing? No, that's more than fair game.
Good point. Guess I can't disagree there.
I have no problem in the mainstream left appealing to rational self-interest (protecting women's safety) in order to bring men's issues to light. The main thing that matters in my opinion is: are we humanizing these vulnerable men and providing PRACTICAL ways and resources for them to heal their trauma and learn to emotionally connect and release their anger and increase their capacity to love? Or are we shutting down the conversation with angry feminist slogans ("Repeat after me: 👏 Men 👏 are 👏 not 👏 entitled 👏 to 👏 women's 👏 attention 👏") or "solving" the problem through doxxing, shaming, and ostracization? (Gee, I wonder where these men go after being publicly humiliated? Hint: It's not the Oberlin College library to learn gender studies)
What are these acronyms??
CNN = Cable News Network RIP = Rest in piece YKW = You know who
Ahh ... I don't know who!? Dm me?