Each generation tells the next that college is needed even more these days, unless you want to be a trash collector or construction worker. That, along with the getting worse pay and body damaging labor, adds up fast.
It is exactly this. We’re trying to recruit hard too, which is working. My local can take about 50 apprentices a year. Between job fairs and school presentations we had 700 apply this year, which is awesome, but way more than we can handle at once.
There is great money to be made in the trades, and joining a union is the absolute best way to do it.
You do realize you have to be a member and respected by the local in order to become the leader, right? You say it like the president of a union wasn’t a jw before he got elected. Our current local executive team were all working in the field less than a year ago.
Ex construction worker here. I did HVAC installation for 6 years and worked as an apprentice electrician for two. This is in California(SoCal;southern California). I didn’t get any health insurance benefits. Also I wasn’t in a union of any kind. The work is demanding; the pay was ok. There’s a lot of toxic Mother Fuckers in construction, besides your boss I mean. I also felt that there wasn’t many trade schools to go to and they were not easy to find. I went to get a certificate in an electrician course and found out that the certificate ( which I didn’t even get, because I didn’t show up on the last day (came to get it multiple times after with no luck)) that they were giving out didn’t even mean shit really. I always felt there’s not enough clear information on how to climb the ladder if you wanted to get accredited education in construction. Unless You went to LA TRADE TECH college (Los Angeles) . Or if you didn’t get a job at LADWP, your skills and knowledge didn’t offer You any good jobs. I worked private sector jobs and got my knowledge from; (basically) an online school ( penn foster ) .
Anyways 🤨 I just always felt that the state didn’t provide enough information on how to climb the ladder in your career, where to go get certification that was accredited ETC.
We really need some bad ass trade schools (out here) that aren’t for profit. And clear information on how to get licensed in different trades.
That’s my two cents
Edit; let me add this; to me it feels like the government can be shortcited. They didn’t invest in training 😕 new generation of trade workers IMHO ; and now they’re like; “oh shit!”
For profit; “everything”, makes life shit. (Pardon my French and also the terrible use of English grammar)
Men are also different from women. Not just physically but mentally. Part of the problem the writer had was not understanding how male friendships work and expecting a mirror of female friendships. Certainly it can be lonelier as a man but in some ways it’s just the way we are.
I’m just saying that men in general have a much easier time being alone. I don’t think we should always be alone, but more men than women have the ability to be solitary and happy at the same time.
I think the important thing here is that there’s absolutely no reason it HAS to be this way. These aren’t intrinsic properties of male and female friendships. They are driven primarily by cultural factors and have changed significantly even over recent history.
I’m just saying the cultures arise from the people. There’s a reason things are the way they are and it’s not some evil corporation or government trying to oppress us. At least in the west. Can’t quite say that about China or other Communist regimes.
Things are the way they are because people are forced into the culture they were born into and are pressured at every angle to stay that way or face social backlash.
I got called gay cause I got too excited while talking to one of my friends. Because it’s a common culture trait in America that any overly positive emotion towards another guy means your a sissy boy
They called you gay not because they thought you were homosexual but as an offhanded insult. The two definitions have been disconnected for quite a while.
Trust me it wasn’t just an insult where I grew up it had a seriously negative impact on my ability to socialize or form any kind of romantic relationship
You're right to a point, it's just coming off as dismissive.
Yes, men and women are built differently through biology. Yes, hormones give an innate edge for certain factors. One of them may very well be the ability to last without a social structure for longer than women. We've slowly built up our society with smoky mirrors of those facts around us.
What they're saying is that nature vs nurture isn't 100% one way or the other which I think you'd agree with. It's more you're both pressing pedantic points lol.
It does when it comes to closeness and intimacy with friends. Look at a lot of European cultures where kissing your friends is extremely common and closeness is normalized.
It’s all the anti gay shit that gets spread in America that makes men uncomfortable to be close and open with their friends
I really appreciate you taking the time to say that.
A side note to the above; men struggle to keep friends, especially as the years go on, but our group keeps growing (all initiated to the power of hugs and love).
I think it’s the openness that’s made it so much easier to stick together rather than fade away. I hope more men can open up and deeply bond beyond surface interests and common spaces.
Of course! Changing the world starts with changing the world immediately around you. You're truly doing good, even more so by opening your group to newcomers!
Ignoring the biological effects of testosterone on the male body is dangerous. This makes males aggressive, violent, and hierarchical. These are intrinsic and not driven by cultural factors. Sports exist for a healthier outlet for this aggressive and biological need for competition.
Lol nice. Well I’m sorry, if you lived in the US in a state that we frequent, I would get you a few hugs. Maybe you should just make a sign that says free hugs and stand in the middle of a public area. I’ll bet you would get some real good ones…
Easily possible. Grow up somewhere with a lot of macho man mentality with a toxic masculine father figure that wants nothing more than for you to grow up to be their clone that only like MAN stuff. Took me over 30 years to be hugged the way I didn’t know i needed to be hugged because I fell into a friendship with a woman that knew a few broken men.
The problem is not about you. It’s about your ability to accept another man who wants a “female” friendship. And apparently you don’t want any of that, which makes you part of the problem.
I’m talking about a woman who wanted to physically be a man but is still mentally programmed as a woman could not understand male friendships. It’s not that men don’t have friends or deep friendships. It’s just that they’re usually different from the opposite gender.
I’d say they’re doing it to themselves. Feminism doesn’t come across as inclusive, and has a “fall in line or get left behind” mentality.
Even something dumb like Sokka’s character growth from being a sexist 12 year old to respecting & appreciating women was said to have gotten removed from Netflix’s Avatar TLA remake.
At some point, that rigidity is going to push people away, and it appears that it didn’t take much to push people to villainize feminism.
Well here is the fucking thing, you can never “win” with feminists cause they all slightly believe something else to be of utmost importance. Every women that does not agree is brainwashed by patriarchy but as soon as you got a penis your deviation from their believes makes you a sexist or even anti feminist. This is of course not true for all feminists, maybe its even a minority but it is a very vocal one and it does not help to have your sister be one… help😭
I’d say they’re doing it to themselves. Feminism doesn’t come across as inclusive, and has a “fall in line or get left behind” mentality.
And on this I’d say I blame the parents most of all. I consider myself a feminist and grew up in an extended family of strong female figures. At no point was feminism (the word) discussed. What was, was an understanding that women are equal to men and deserve everything that a man has be it good or bad.
The problem is that many people fell on feminism as an ideal to latch on to without better understanding and espousing the core principles behind it.
Fast forward to now where I am a 46 year old man with a daughter and 2 boys I have far more concern for the boys than the girl and I make sure as often as possible to stress the principles of feminism and not just the word.
For women, “a rising tide lifts all boats”. Just as many men (I like to include myself) are doing all we can to bring women to a place of equality, women must also be beholden on themselves to ensure men do not get left behind.
Doesn’t seem super well theorized to me. How exactly is porn playing into it? I do think the black and white language around metoo (yesallmen, believewomen) marginalized a lot of guys and contributes to this mindset. People who took it literally found the moral imperative it implied absurd and decided they’d need to find another narrative that they could be proud of themselves inside of. This is what they found when they looked. Invalidating all expert opinion as liberal makes it hard to bring sense into the conversation.
I do think apps like tinder are directly responsible for all the self published bullshit they read mixing terms from economics to analyze the ‘sexual marketplace’ and seem mostly premised on the idea that some woman owes you in particular because of statistics.
Some will, but when you are fighting to change norms language and optics are an important part of that. I think the movement would have been stronger had it avoided language implying gender essentialism.
But yesallmen/believeallwomen DID, as you say, come with widely available explanation and purpose.
…and you don’t think that choice of language played a part in the reaction to things like when Jimmy Bennett accused Asia Argento of statutory rape and she paid him off to shut him up? I mean, she more or less literally did what #metoo was accusing powerful men of doing, had done it recently at that point, and didn’t get half the shit most #metoo targets got as a consequence. Or that aide that accused a CA legislator of being inappropriate with him, so she investigated herself and found no wrongdoing on her part.
And even the people who claim to be all about #metoo and #believewomen get…picky about that when a woman accuses the wrong person - see Tara Reade’s accusation against Biden.
It absolutely did not. It came with shouting down anyone who wanted to question women who came forward with rape accusations. That’s how some of these highly-publicised cases, like Matress Girl, resulted in immediate expulsion of those accused. Had they done actual investigating into the matter, they would have seen the woman absolutely should not be believed, but that went against the slogan.
Because they are immersed in an ecosystem that pretends that respect for human dignity and unearned respect for authority are identical because they use the same word.
They believe that others should respect the innate authority they feel they should hold as men. Simultaneously, since they don't get that, they don't feel like they need to respect other people's right to exist.
And then a group promises them everything they've ever wanted, if they are willing to do fascist shit. Of course they're into it.
I highly doubt any language is more correlated with authoritarianism, particularly the English language. There is a cultural aspect to collective action over individualism, but I think authoritarianism is a base human personality trait.
You might change your view about that if you ever read “Mutual Aid” by Peter Kropotkin. I used to think the same, but it appears things like authoritarianism and hierarchies actually run contrary to evolution. Not that the trait doesn’t exist, but it appears to be something that has been exacerbated in cultures that deliberately adopt a hierarchical system vs. something that’s just natural to all humans.
I am someone who believes that multilevel selection is a primary driver of evolutionary dynamics and works at levels ranging from the organism to the ecosystem (at various levels of effectiveness). Kropotkin is nice philosophically, although he is read about far more often than he is read. That’s entirely reasonable, because his theories provide a foundation for lines of investigation we still pursue today but are obviously outdated, as are the ideas of everyone whose work predated discoveries like genes.
If you want a more modern view on the evolutionary benefits of cooperation, I would suggest starting with Harvard biology professor EO Wilson, who specialized in ants and ended up concluding that humans were in fact a eusocial species - unique among primates and one of very few on earth. He invented the field (or at least added additional formalization to the study) of sociobiology - the evolution of social behaviors. It’s the same category as ants and bees. For an anthropological and cross-cultural perspective I’d suggest Graeber. For a mathematical and economic perspective, I’d start with Sam Bowles. For the foundations of pro-social behavior in primates, I’d recommend Frans de Waal.
I’d be happy to try to answer any questions on the subject.
I’m not qualified to engage in your discussion, nor do I have a good experience trusting random internet strangers who say they’re certain things, but here’s Kropotkin’s book for anyone who wants to read it: theanarchistlibrary.org/…/petr-kropotkin-mutual-a…
As comfortable as I’d be with a woman taking contraceptives. None are completely safe and there haven’t been nearly enough studies on their effects (particularly the mental health implications).
Just because there hasn’t been enough study on men’s birth control, doesn’t mean we put the burden of contraceptives on women alone.
Made me realize (hyperbole) how literal people are, how ready some are to dig their heels in and not interested in listening at all. If one ever had a conversation with a women (hyperbole), the unsafe feeling is something that comes up pretty often (I guess the women has to feel safe around you - so maybe there is that) and is sadly based on personal negative experiences they had.
I agree, This polarization is something I wish we had a strategy against. Or, at least, the knowledge to identify something as likely to result in heel-digging. The reason I believe we should discuss this meme here is not to figure out the statistics of wildlife, but to gain insights about how certain things affect us, and what type of response is desired and helpful.
At least for me the question is how to talk to people who don't want to listen. And the easiest answer is obviously not to, but that does not work in long term since it just enforces the existing echo chambers.
I read somewhere and like to mention it to other guys when it comes up in conversation about the difference between a man's and woman's greatest fear on a date.
The man is usually scared of being laughed at or rejected. The woman is usually scared of being killed.
I think the article brought that up as a good point. It would have to walk a fine line and would work best as advice column to answer specific questions. I think the generalities can cause sexist issues much more than a specific example
But generalities are wrong, period. When the subject is described subjectively, then you’re not crossing any lines. When you question your own perception, there’s no way you could really inadvertently cross any sexist line.
For example discussions on the difference between what women think they want in a man vs what actually turns them on. Conscious vs unconscious desires. This isn’t a women-only phenomena mind you. It takes most people a lot of experience to figure out the difference. This could obviously come off as infantilising or mansplainy.
For example discussions on the difference between what women think they want in a man vs what actually turns them on.
I don’t see how this is a good advice, since it’s a giant overgeneralization. In my opinion any good dating advice is rather personal based on the people involved. Sure some people don’t know what they want - no matter the gender and others are pretty well aware of their need. A good dating advice should always start with pay attention to the person across of you and don’t put them into a bucket, since that’s also something one would love for them selfes.
But now I’m more curious about what you think women and men really need?
Yeah, I was generalizing for the example. I would be less general in a larger piece. Good dating advice starts even before you sit down across from the other person. It starts with yourself. You have to know what you need in a partner and know what you want and to be able to differentiate between the two. Partially that just comes from getting to know a wide variety of people (friends, not just romantic partners).
You need to pay attention to what society is telling you that you should want vs what your body wants. For example, I grew up in the Midwest US during the Baywatch years where busty blondes were portrayed as the ideal. Over time I learned what really got me going was a slim, small-busted brunette. The same principle applies to non-physical characteristics as well.
You think? I dunno. It’s 100% about how you actually view women. When you talk about the woman you’re dating in a way that just recognizes them as another person, then there is no problem.
I believe wholeheartedly I could write this column without issue.
Social justice influencers acridly piling blame for social problems onto cis white males without nuance. This makes a lot of cis white males feel targeted for factors outside their control, and so they flock to ideologies that venerate them.
General dissatisfaction with career and other life prospects, in the shadow of an idyllic bygone status-quo propped up by exploitative short term policies. They saw their parents and grandparents thrive in that trad-coded utopia, and they’re noticing the inadequacies of their own prospects.
So mostly those two things, exacerbated by fascist propagandists who have taken advantage of them to promote the facade of a return-to-roots. Also good old fashioned cult of personality.
To your first point, the nature of communicating right now, particularly on the internet, means there is no room to have two different voices:
You can’t have an “inside voice” (communicating to those who already agree with you and reinforcing micro-cultural support) and an “outside voice” (communicating with everyone else, potentially finding or convincing new supporters); every statement is heard by everyone and is, de facto, outside voice.
And that’s only for people who would otherwise care to differentiate— the overall culture views conflict as a virtue, and so rewards people who “tell it like it is,” ignoring the fact that you can tell it like it is in ways that don’t maximize belligerence and alienation.
They aren’t left. They are paid assets or bots by the global fascist movement. I absolutely refuse to consider them left because their actions benefit the right. Who cares what they say, what do their actions do?
I agree with this bit, they aren’t left and their actions benefit the right. I came upon the histories of rich white men exploiting labor forces and toxic business practices to squeeze the lower classes when I was a teenager and discovered those same kind of histories had been evolved or evolve in some circles to outright hate for white people succeeding in life as if it was their white privilege and blood money inherited wealth that carried them that far. The truth I think is yea white privilege exists but also many of those people earned their place in society by working with the opportunities life made available, trying hard in school or getting into trade work and sticking with it. Of course their are many people benefiting from inherited wealth and status of their family and I imagine many of our oligarchs in America are white. Still now is not the time for these so called leftists to start outright hating every white cisgendered man or woman they meet. It only serves the enemies of progress to do that. It wrongfully ostracizes masses of white men and the only place they have to turn is to people like Ben Shapiro or other similar talking heads telling them, “look at how the left treats us and how much they want to destroy our way of life.” The left by its principles or ideals is a place of acceptance and equality. Anyone not practicing that towards all walks of life, excluding any violent extremists, is not supporting the left and should not call themselves a leftist.
You’re missing nuance. They don’t code white PEOPLE as bad, they code whiteNESS as bad. Whiteness is a social construct, it’s not an innate characteristic. If you’re white, it’s because some people 500 years ago decided you were white. It’s a choice that was made. It’s not part of you, it’s just a name for how society treats you.
So when I say “whites are evil”, I’m not calling you specifically evil. I’m saying that society tells you to be evil. To reject evil is to reject whiteness and society, and that’s what you should do.
Damn, the author really hit the nail on the head with this one.
On the other side are progressives and liberals, who, according to Emba, are hesitant to say much of anything about men, especially white men, much less speak empathetically about their struggles
Being raised in the 00s when this sort of thing was on the rise, my mother was especially defensive about boys being left out. From a young kid's perspective, I just assumed many teachers didn't like boys, but it still kind of hurt to be treated like a fuckup. Years later, I understood why she was so annoyed at the anti-male behavior of the 00s and 10s.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing continued throughout highschool and college, with community meetings in highschool that essentially blamed rape on men, or special trips that female students were allowed to go on, but male students were not (science conventions, etc).
While I never felt the corrupting force of the Jorden Petersens and Andrew Tates of the world, I completely understand why men in different situations might feel this way. Some friends were swayed by those types for years, and turned over a new leaf when shown empathy and kindness. But that was not an overnight change. It takes awhile to undo that hurt.
The only place where boys were consistently not told they were fuckups was Boyscouts. Boys made mistakes there. They learned there. And it helped them get through tough times or work through shitty personalities. The ones that looked the least redeemable actually became incredible leaders, empathetic people, and people who now give back to society in surprising ways.
There are probably other avenues for boys and men, such as having boys start school a year later than girls. Having spaces where they can make mistakes in a fairly controlled environment, and express emotions would help. Recently, I posted a thread asking about physical affection between men and got some surprisingly good answers. So I think we will get there. At the end of the day, the vast majority of people are normal. Most just want to be treated warmly and will reciprocate that :)
A big part is diminishing religiosity. There is little point in getting married if you aren’t religious. Thanks to progress made by LGBT couples, most of the legal benefits of marriage are shared by domestic partnerships. Traditionalists on the left and the right make a big deal of this, but it is of negligible factual importance.
I don't think most people who get married do it for religious reasons or even to start a family in the US anymore. People do it since they see it a formal a commitment and want to announce their love in public.
That only covers one angle, if people do it for religious reasons, not if they don’t do it because of religion. I’m not getting married, and the religious connotations of even a secular wedding is a significant chunk of why.
There’s also a million legal reasons to get married… If there weren’t, same sex marriage would probably have never made it to the Supreme Court. Everything from insurance coverage, employment benefits, credit rating, child custody, transfer of property following death, medical decisions, and a bunch of other very secular, very important benefits are conferred via legal marriage.
Is there any way to adapt this better for polyamorous people? I have poly friends that got around it by choosing a primary partner and marrying them, but that seems like a bad solution in the long term.
I don't think that is going to be happening for a long time. It took decades for gays and lesbians. The marrying of a primary partner is the best solution so far.
But do they identify as a non-labelled person that respects women and their choices? Or is this just about political labelling made for marketing and division?
Men's Liberation
Top