Oof they are awful, and indicative of the issues raised in the article. So many of the men commenting are defending the “man” stereotype as “natural”, and ignoring that men have issues existing in society probably because of the pressures of that stereotype. Nobody wants men to feel isolated and lonely and kill themselves 4x as much. I don’t think that’s a “natural” part of being a man. At least it doesn’t have to be.
This is why it’s hard for me to take these types seriously.
They complain about not getting compliments, but refuse to compliment each other for fear of sounding “gay”. It’s like they only count compliments if it’s from a sexually interested woman they happen to find attractive.
But women, especially the attractive ones, know better than to compliment men randomly for fear of “leading them on”.
if you want to talk about women’s issues, why don’t you go to communities dedicated to that? we’re not taking away from them; we’re also feminist. we’re allied, and it’s important to have a space for men to talk about, from a feminist perspective, how the patriarchy impacts them
i don’t understand why you think space on lemmy is somehow limited?
nor do i see how your second paragraph is relevant at all
it seems like you view this community as a stereotypical MRA/MGTOW kind of place, which it definitely isn’t. and getting rid of it would leave it so men looking to talk about their issues only have those shitty places to go. that would only lead more men down the alt right rabbit hole
I had conservative parents and I might have grown up the same… but I slid WAY to the left which I attribute to one very specific and pivotal event: watching the news and protests around Trump getting elected while I was sitting in a McDonald’s in Thorncliffe Park. Until that day I was pretty indifferent to politics and stuff, but this had me question: what injustice in this world led to this crazy person to take power?
I’ve experienced this many times myself. Been vegetarian for almost 3 years now. Male co-workers make unsolicited comments towards it when they find out I’m vegetarian.
It’s happened probably a dozen times or more. I am probably one of the most casual and tolerant non-meat eaters you’ll meet. I’ll chat openly with you about hunting, guns, best ways to cook bacon, steaks, burgers, etc.
I never preach or shame people for eating meat. Still, when guys find out, it’s a lot of:
“You’re a vegetarian? Ha, your girlfriend doesn’t have to know, we’ll let you eat meat here.”
“No wonder you’re always snacking, you only eat rabbit food!”
“Yeah, my wife tried that crap with me once, didn’t work.”
I even had a co-worker get in my face because he, “thought I said something about eating meat being unhealthy.” I didn’t say anything of the sort, but it was ironic coming from a guy who was pushing 350lbs and pounded 3-5 Mountain Dews a day.
Assumptions that I was only doing it because a woman was forcing me, or that I was implicitly shaming them for eating meat, or that I wasn’t getting my nutrition, blah blah.
Vegan here. I found that it’s exclusively those coworkers, that are really about their masculinity. It’s an important part of their personality to be a man. Those people tend to also dislike or don’t understand LGBT folks, and have strong feelings about the differences between man and woman and their places in society. They are not bad people. I like a lot of them. But it gets tiring and infuriating at times.
Sounds like some of my coworkers. I'm not vegetarian but some of the comments about the products in the warehouse are laughable. One coworker said he'd never eat fake meat. Same guy can't understand how someone could be transgender. He's a good person from all accounts I've heard but is stuck on that mindset. It's nice to have something to snack on that something didn't have to die for.
This is going to be counter intuitive: being a POS is something some people want. They especially want it if it promises them comfort, luxury, or status.
I mean, look at all the trash people consume everyday despite how bad it is for them. We all know it's bad. Still, we gotta have it.
Being a POS is like drinking soda with no one to tout the benefits of drinking straight H2O. The left needs to make drinking water sexy!
Bad analogy. My choice of beverage does not affect other people.
Treating people with basic respect and as equals is no one's responsibility to "make sexy". Let's say the convo was about being racist. Is it someone's responsibility to make it cool to treat another person as an equal? Or would you be bigoted because it just how things are?
Yeah, I get it. It's really hard to understand. It's just basic respect, right? How could someone not value basic human decency?
I can't answer that question. All I know is that some people just don't.
It doesn't make sense to me that domestic abusers will beat up someone that loves them, yet it still happens. Politicians push legislation that they know will hurt their constituents, yet they still push it. Parents will try to force the lifestyle they desire for their children on their children out of love, even as it alienates their children, yet they persist. Some (many/all??) criminals know what they do hurts other people, yet they still commit crime.
I don't get it either. I only know basic human decency isn't valued by a lot of people. And you can indignantly scoff at such people all you want, incredulous that they just don't get the basics of empathy, a fundamental human emotion. They'll hurt others all the same.
Me, though? Drawing on my empathy, I hope such people find the happiness and freedom they're looking for without the pain and suffering they cause.
It boggles the mind doesn't it? The left tells them what behavior is unacceptable. So they ask how they're supposed to behave. But the left already told them what was unacceptable. Then they get upset when the people who told them how to behave react to negatively to them acting ignorant.
If men really need to be told how to behave at all. There's no hope for men's liberation. If you don't know what patriarchy and misogyny is. You shouldn't be taking part in any debates activism or discourse on the subject. At least not until you've gone and educated yourself.
And to those who really don't know or would actually like to understand. Asking how you're supposed to behave is the wrong way to go about it. You can behave however you like as long as you don't act misogynist and patriarchal. Don't imply someone must be a certain way or can't do a certain thing because of who they are. For example I think most guys would get a little upset if someone assumed that they were an ignorant caveman incapable of learning.
If you really have to ask. The best way to ask is to be genuine. To tell anyone acting offended that you're aware some of the behaviors Etc that you've been raised with are problematic. And that you are doing your best to understand when they are and learn to not do that. And then ask the person to help you understand what Behavior it was that upset them. You'll have infinitely more success and much better answers that way. Just by being sincere.
And in turn, I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying that young people should just figure things out for themselves, and asking why it should be someone else's responsibility to provide them with guidance.
The act of people calling out toxicity is the guidance. It is corrective action. It's disciplining a child.
Your orgional comment reads
Toxic man: doing something toxic
The left: Don't do that is toxic.
Toxic man: what should I do instead?
The left: ???? WTF ????
Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren't going to tell me what to do.
The answer is literally stop doing that thing. Obviously people need role models, young people are going to make mistakes, and when they make mistakes they need to be corrected. It is on the person to change their behavior. It isn't a failure of "the left" from preventing this behavior, it's a failure of those acting poorly to correct their behavior after being called out for it.
I just don't understand how someone can write a comment implying it's "the lefts" fault for not elevating people out of the absolute shit hole wasteland of ethics and behavior the GOP and right wing personalities have created. Like damn maybe you right, people like Andrew Tate are really a failing by left wing ideology to prevent them from spouting toxic nonsense.
It's literally right there, just a couple of posts up from this one. There's no excuse for misrepresenting it.
Here's what I actually said:
The left: “The patriarchy and toxic masculinity are evil and destructive!”
Young men: “Okay. What should I do instead then?”
l>The left: “Fuck off!”
I didn't stipulate "young" men by accident - that's the central point. I'm not talking about adults who have already developed a set of behaviors (which makes your first sentence entirely and completely wrong). I'm talking about young people - people who are lost and confused and casting about for guidance, as virtually all young people are (and not coincidentally, that's also what the linked article is talking about).
And ironically enough, you actually provide an example of the problem insofar as you don't even acknowledge the distinction - you just lump them in with overtly misogynistic and toxic adults and condemn them each and all. You not only refuse to provide them with the guidance they want and need, but bristle self-righteously at the very thought that there might be any expectation that you should.
And meanwhile, people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate go out of their way to recognize them and cultivate them. And it works not least because you've already written them off.
Which is pretty much exactly my point, and the point of the linked article. We need to do more than simply assume that young men are automatically misogynists and therefore condemn them. We need to provide them with something positive - an actual path that they can follow that leads to a better way of living. They're right there, right now - at the crossroads in their lives, wondering how they should go about growing into adults, and Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate and their ilk are right there, right now, telling them a bunch of toxic bullshit.
And meanwhile, what are we offering them? Just what you said here - the presumption that they're already toxic, and a bland command to knock it the fuck off.
I have to say I think your comment is very well written. You are much better with words than I. However, I fail to see where I am lumping people together.
Like I understand there is some discontinuity between your orgional comment and my approximation of how it comes across. I get what you are saying about swapping "young man" for "toxic man" and see how it seems I conflated the two. But the answer to their question is still "dont act like this". I am clearly not insinuating that all young people are automatically misogynistic just because the word was omitted. People acting misogynistic are (intended or not) perpetuating misogyny and if they fail to respond to correction, even if not directed at them, is not the failure of the left.
I am not sure what you meant by "makes your first sentence completely wrong". If you are referring to my use of "child" it was a euphemism comparing how social backlash for poor behavior is akin to disciplining a child.
It's clear that you want the best for young people and to keep them out if the right wing ideology. But blaming it on "the left" and not the source of the probelm is just ridiculous.
Edit: Deleted my last sentence about positive role models because it was incorrect. And added stuff below.
After thinking about your comments overnight I understand what you are saying and agree. The left needs to do more to educate and guide young people.
I am not sure what you meant by “makes your first sentence completely wrong”.
Sorry - I should've made that more clear. I meant the first sentence of your summation of what I said - the part I quoted. It went wrong immediately because you started with the presumption of an already toxic man doing something toxic, for which he's then condemned. But I was talking about young people - people who haven't established an adult personality yet - who are still feeling their way through life, trying to figure out who and what they want to be.
And to your edit - there's nothing I value more in a discussion/debate than honesty,cand not just the surface homesty of telling the truth as one sees it, but the deeper and much more rare intellectual honesty of actually considering what the other person has said, rather than just rejecting it out of hand. So thanks.
Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren’t going to tell me what to do.
The reason this comes up is that masculinity is largely based around externally conferred social status. You have to constantly be doing something to maintain an image of masculinity. Often this means some sort of social or physical violence in the right time or place (beat up the mugger to defend your partner, call out your boss when you're being treated unfairly, put rival men in their place). Just as frequently, however, it is the expectation of a certain amount of self sacrifice (paying for meals, military service). What they don't understand is how anyone can expect them to maintain their social status when they are avoiding this role that they have been explicitly shown that there will be consequences if they fail to meet. The answer is simple: once you're out of the masculinity rat race, you're out. By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.
The only problem is that all of these pressures are external in the first place and this whole dynamic creates strong social gender boundaries. It is very easy for a lot of men to look at their social circles and see exclusively people who punish them for a failure to live up to a masculine ideal.
What the fuck do you mean by "the left"? I don't remember any leftist political party in my country adopting any such program. Or for you "the left" is random people on tumblr or something?
The left is far less monolithic than the right. It was a sub-subset of the left, a percentage of feminists were/are anti male. Unfortunately, they were not called out for this, and so got very loud about it. This coloured the message from general left leaning sources.
Growing up, there was a lot of "men are bad/evil" and that we needed to make it up to women. A lot of this pressure came from left leaning sources.
Thankfully, I managed to avoid getting drawn into the right leaning backlash to this.
Well, of course. Conservatism (and authoritarianism) at least pays lip service to addressing their concerns. From their perspective, the Left have ignored and devalued them for years.
When a man is disadvantaged but is constantly told he is the beneficiary of the patriarchal system, he feels dismissed and unsupported, and his actual needs aren't met.
From their perspective, the Left have ignored and devalued them for years.
This is a very important point: the current technocratic left (and I'm really reluctant to call them "the left" because, frankly, they're right-centrists who don't care what you ingest or who you fuck) has been absolutely terrible about talking to people's fears and anxieties. At best they push concerns away with neoliberal knob-twiddling; at worst they demonize them, but in general they/we/the left have been extremely unwilling to be empathetic to working-class anxieties, either because no one wants to touch the status quo because it works well, or because playing to feelings is seen as crass and manipulative.
The reactionary right, on the other hand, as no such scruples: they've had this playbook ready since 1933 and are more than willing to talk about people's fears and anxieties.
It says a lot that the most successful and engaging left-wing politicians (Sanders, Corbyn; even Obama, to a degree early in his term) have spoken to these feelings. It's also telling that those politicians were ruthlessly attacked by their own party.
Yes, by not introducing trauma of being micromanaged, parented too much and by allowing them personal space.
By understanding that this doesn’t mean kids don’t need help, they need a lot of it, but you don’t come arrogantly with your mind made up about what kind of help exactly they need.
By being respectful of their borders in interests also, because when a kid is interested in anything at all, and the parent thinks it’s cool to just intervene “helping” in that interest and “participating” without being invited, especially publicly, that’s worse than bullying.
And also doing that thing which may seem stone age - never ever support anybody from the outside against your kid. Teachers, other kids’ parents, neighbors, anybody. If your kid does something wrong, you talk. But you don’t turn it into something you discuss and judge behind their back together with teachers or whoever else and then come to your kid with your opinion. That’s called family values and it really is important.
In short, respect.
Militant right ideologies are attractive for people who feel themselves disrespected. Idealistic ideologies (not only right) are attractive for people who lack happiness. Repressive ideologies (again not only right) are attractive for people who feel themselves weak. Conspiracy theories are attractive for people who feel lost. Reactionary ideologies are attractive for people who feel rejected.
Note: This is from last year. The numbers are much higher now. Ukraine puts the number of dead Russian soldiers at 376,030. The US says it’s 315,000 personnel.
Either way, if those numbers are anywhere close to the trugh, then Russia has already lost ~50% of the personnel that the entire Soviet Union lost in its 9 year-long invasion of Afghanistan. And the fallout of the war in Afghanistan contributed a lot to the fall of the Soviet Union.
I ddg russian population 2023 and got this from world-o-meter: “9th Russia 144,444,359(estimated population) -0.19%(change) -268,955(net)”
Until they have to mobilize the more dense populated area, it’s just a number game for them I guess.
Oh, and compare to Ukraine, it’s pretty dark.
“41th Ukraine 36,744,634 -7.45 % -2,957,105” in the later column, Migrant listed as 1,784,718 assuming fled the war. so should be part of that -2.9m decline number. I don’t know what happened to the other 1.2m.
All of the workers shortages always come down to the same things. Money for the workers which have been sacrificed for the business to be as profitable as other businesses. I know that for something like construction this can only be done by skimping on quality or screwing over workers.
Why not both!? I can maximize my profits by producing the skimpiest, leakiest, shittiest micro condos (charged out at the most luxurious of prices) and also shaft my overworked, overextended, undersupported workforce (preferably foriegn, marginalized and/or vulnerable)! /s
Even if you have the world's tinkiest dinky you're going to want an elongated bowl just to have some room for the pee to arc out so you don't piss all over your balls.
I’m really confused reading this thread. Why isn’t it possible to just twist and tuck it left or right? I’m a dude and have never had a problem peeing sitting down on a round toilet.
Round seats are best because you can tuck your willy under the seat and there’s no chance of it popping up. Also the cool ceramic underside of the toilet seat helps stimulate urine flow
It sounds like the argument is that men are more likely to succeed if they don't have to worry about managing the day-to-day activities aka a housewife.
While it may be helpful for his career, it generally comes at an overall decrease in happiness for the homemaker.
Society is harder than ever, with restaurants being more expensive, childcare difficult to sort out and far more expensive than food, and so forth. A trade wife makes all those obstacles go away.
The actual answer is society needs to step up its game and support couples better, because failing social safety nets has an inverse correlation to rising misogyny.
Yeah, I don't believe either myself or the article are trying to assert that singles should be left hanging. The point is that failing social safety nets mechanically lead misogynistic outcomes.
This whole scenario makes total sense to me. Try to put yourself in the role of the woman:
Man vs bear, random encounter alone in the woods. Both can easily overpower and harm you.
With the bear, you know it's one or the other, it either is going to be scared off by you yelling at it, or it's not and it will very quickly kill you.
The man, if he intends no harm, cool. But if he does intend harm, it can be impossible to tell. He can lie to you, appear friendly and helpful, all the while plotting to harm you horrifically. The bear can have no such malice.
The bear will not target you because of your race, sex, political views, gender identity, sexuality, or nationality.
The bear won't pretend to be your friend to lure you into a sense of false security. The bear won't become enraged at something you say and all of a sudden turn on you.
The bear has no fragile sense of ego that it will attempt to assert if it feels you "wounded" it in some trivial way.
A bear cannot be brainwashed by toxic propaganda or cultural norms about gender roles. A bear will never have any sense of sexual entitlement.
A bear won't drug you and assault you, a bear won't call its friends to join in when you are vulnerable. A bear won't hold blackmail against you after getting you drunk and manipulating you.
If all women had to do 99.99% of the time to scare away dangerous men was stand up tall, puff our their chests, and yell loudly, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
If all women had to do 99.99% of the time to scare away dangerous men was stand up tall, puff our their chests, and yell loudly, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
Not a joke, actually. By and large, predatory men prey upon weak women. Women who are afraid of conflict, afraid of drawing attention to themselves. Gavin DeBecker, author of The Gift of Fear, wrote that one of the greatest things you can do in the case of being attacked is to very loudly and boldly reject their advances. "I TOLD YOU NO, LEAVE ME ALONE." The vast majority will run away because they can't be stealthy.
i had to google this because i am not a tiktok-er, and apparently women (? sample size?) are commonly stating that they would rather encounter a bear than a man if they were alone in the woods
interesting point that men often also chose the bear for the question of if they would rather have their wife / daughter stuck in the woods with a bear or a man, so that says a lot about men, as well, i think
we can derive some other mildly interesting points from this, like viewing sexual violence as potentially worse than non-sexual but fatal violence. or like, that one might have to live with societal judgement of having been sexually assaulted because there's still a lot of assumptions that you initiated it somehow (rape culture) vs people universally having sympathy for the victim of an animal attack
overall, the unfortunate reality is that women generally view men or people who look like men as dangerous. i'm a transgender man and i've observed this phenomenon in a very real way as women have gone from generally friendly or neutral to detached. it sucks, but it's not personal
however, if this really bothers you, there are actually some things you can do to help women feel more comfortable around you. this is not like... a guarantee. at the end of the day, you're gonna have to live with jumpscaring some women if you round a corner too quick at them. that's how life is. but, if you want to give them some signs you are not a violent person, not as a way to trick them into trusting you, but as a genuine attempt to help them feel safe:
if you change your style to be more feminine, even in subtle ways, like wearing a pink shirt or pink shoes. if you have a man purse. you don't really need to go full femme but if you express yourself in a way that makes you look like someone secure in your masculinity (actual), it will help women understand you're not really a threat
which i think, generally, reflects that women understand that patriarchy isn't about men as a whole, but rather that most men haven't confronted the ideas they were raised with in order to "be a man", and those are the dangerous ideas they need to avoid to be safe
i think there is also an idea that expressing yourself as a softer or more feminine man will make it harder for you to get laid, and i think this may be true. however, i would suggest that women who only wanna fuck you because you're traditionally masculine are not really the women you wanna be fucking, because they're (probably) going to bring their own ideas of toxic masculinity to enforce on you. those are the women who are more concerned with whether or not e.g. you can change the oil on their car, that you are a "real man", and hopefully it goes without saying that those are the ideas you want to avoid reinforcing / internalizing, even if that means turning down a sexual partner
A system that demands infinite growth from a saturated market leaves no options other than making things consistently worse than they were in the previous quarter. Anyone who would drink Coca-Cola is already drinking it. So how do they produce growth? They do it by cutting wages, demanding more productivity during the same number of hours, cutting benefits, raising prices, decreasing the amount of product you get for the same price, stiffing distributors, using cheaper ingredients, moving jobs to third world countries, killing labor activists, and all sorts of other abhorrent behavior. This same concept is true for every other saturated market, which is almost every market this late in the game.
Men's Liberation
Top