I'd argue that it's everyone's responsibility to call out shitstains who claim to believe one's own ideology. Muslims should disavow Isis. Jews should disavow Netanyahu. Just as men's lib disavows Andrew Tate.
My nephew is 14. His dad is, to put it diplomatically, a meathead. And I don't want his son to follow that path. I found out recently that my nephew had fallen into the toxic social media shithole that is the manosphere, thanks to unprompted regurgitation of talking points that seemingly had no end. I talked to him for a good solid hour after that, asking him questions, listening to his answers, trying to show him the big-picture view of how there's a lot of money to be made keeping him angry and engaged, and exploring how much of these things that anger him he's actually experienced vs how much is him just echoing influencers.
He's an intellectually curious kid, and that absolutely works in his favor. I know I can appeal to that, explain how I think, ask him how he feels, and just kind of work through things. But I only get to see him a few times a year. And he's getting fed this nonsense daily. I hope I can be a positive influence for him, because the last thing my family needs is another bigot.
As a minor example supporting a lot of what’s in that article, my wife went out to hang with a friend of hers, and I hung out with a buddy for a couple of hours. When she came home she asked me how he is, and I said, “I don’t know, I didn’t ask”. She seemed shocked and can’t understand why I say we don’t have those kinds of conversations.
I vaguely remember there being a male kindergarten teacher when I was that age. there was usually a maximum of 1 per grade up until high school. that's when there was more like a third per grade.
Anyone of either gender who really believes that getting dismembered alive is PREFERABLE to being raped is well-advised to read up on The Rwandan Genocide, perhaps even find photos of the event. Difficult as it might be for us bougie-beyond-all-belief Westerners to comprehend, humans really do experience far atrocities far more heinous than sexual assault
I'm reminding everyone of both genders that emotions aren't facts, evidence, reality, or truths. They're byproducts of our thoughts, beliefs, and schemas
'Men's rights' projects have proven to be successful gateway recruiting tools for the far right, there's no indication that they would stop fostering these sorts of communities.
The current iteration of The MRM is definitely an offshoot of The Skeptic Community on YouTube, which itself always had a fair amount of overlap with The Alt Right. Same way Environmentalism was an off-shoot of The Counterculture of The 1960s, and as such, always overlapped heavily with The Far Left
Environmentalism has been around for longer than the 60s, and the only reason it has an association with the left is because the right abandoned it. Protecting the environment is an apolitical position since we all live on the same planet.
'Men's rights' is purely manufactured by the right in response to the fall of conservative patriarchal norms that have traditionally placed men at the top of the social pyramid at the cost of other groups. The growth of social awareness and equity movements has forced the right to try and create counter-measures as their rigid heirarchy begins to fade and shrink.
The fundemental basis of all men's rights movements is a lie, namely that men are disadvantaged and that the toxic symptoms of patriarchy that effect some classes of men negatively are the fault of women and equal rights movements.
Every human being(Regardless of gender)is "disadvantaged" in some way. I'm no longer convinced that approaching these subjects as either "men's" or "women's" issues(Rather than American ones, the likes of which invite the attentions and energies of all citizens who'd like to leave our descendants with a slightly saner world than the one we enjoyed)is either intellectually honest, nor politically wise
"Environmentalism has been around for longer than the 60s..."
Modern historians have retroactively labelled events like Edward I outlawing the burning of sea coal as "Environmentalism". The movement we think of today arose in The 1960s. John Muir and folks like that conceptualized their approach as "conservationism"
7:05-7:13 We here at The MRM have been operating under the (uninterrogated)belief that Intersectional Feminism’s proponents are nigh-omnipotent sorcereresses(occasionally sorcerers), who turn docile plebs into blood thirsty misandrists, just by uttering magic lies from behind their microphones. Turns out, the explanation for their success at winning public influence may be simultaneously more prosaic AND more profound:
Intersectionalists provide their prospective converts with not simply one, but SEVERAL roles to play, within the framework of what appears to be, at first glance, a heroic saga… Powerhouse career women and their male allies, who successfully balance lucrative corporate careers with bravely campaigning for social justice, and thwarting the bigots’s schemes to establishing world domination. Bombastic, yet highly seductive and exciting
By contrast, The MRM really only provided our potential converts with one role, in an extremely dreary, unusually unattractive tale… Societal dropout, who’s idea of fun is endlessly griping over all the shit in modern life he disapproves of, yet rarely if ever discussing his/they’re goals and desires. Or a vision of the world they’d like to see
9:50ish-12:00 We’ve been, dare I say, Blue Pill in our understanding of the way many Intersectionalists operate, especially in their speeches and writings. To a large degree, they’re acting whilst doing so. We know this because the Susan Danuta Walters’s of the world(An admitted angry lesbian slithering through the halls of academia, who leads a highly bohemian lifestyle, even when she’s off the clock)really are a microsliver of the human race. The vast majority of Intersectionalists are themselves mostly upper middle class-all points beyond, leading highly “traditional lives”. Including marriages to people of the opposite sex, and raising kids of their own. At first glance, these folks are indistinguishable from those who comprise The Heritage Foyndation’s executive board
Those gigantic crowds who erupt in orgies of virulent rage during Intersectionalist soeeches? They’re almost certainly playing a role also. That Woke sympathizing grads of The New School like this chick https://youtu.be/lZs-Eb6H5BU?si=Gkq5Pj8IphUjWfBH 5:20-7:00 still yearn for a white picket fence house, kids(Plural), and a loving husband of her own is testament to this
This misreading poisoned fatally the way most MRAs conceptualized the extrenal world. That in turn tanslated into their/us pursuing a strategy which failed to convince The 80% of the public who’s still on the fence-and thus amenable to persuasion-to support us
26:19-26:43 It may behoove those of us who are Post-MRM to imagine ourselves having similar conversations with our descendants, at some future date:
-“Daddy, Mummy says you were an activist back in the day. Does that mean you were kinda like Iron Man or a Jedi Knight”
-"No, sweetness: I was pretty much a real life equivalent to The Continental Op. Go Wiki that name, and pay close attention to this paragraph: “The Continental Op is a master of deceit in the exercise of his occupation. In his 1927 Black Mask story “$106,000 Blood Money” the Op is confronted with a dilemma: should he expose a corrupt fellow detective, thereby hurting the reputation of his agency; and should he also allow an informant to collect the $106,000 reward in a big case even though he is morally certain—but cannot prove—that the informant has murdered one of his agency’s clients? The Op resolves his two problems neatly by manipulating events so that the corrupt detective and the informant get into an armed confrontation in which both are killed”
That’s how I and most of my peers rolled… We used highly innovative tactics in the neverending quest that is enhancing and safeguarding the cause of liberty for one and all. Both you and every other child today enjoys a richer, freer life than those of who’ve lived prior, largely thanks to your predecessors’s iron commitment to pragmatism and the pursuit of concrete, tangible objectives"
29:56-30:43 The current iteration of The MRM similarly has, since it’s inception, operated under an assumption which goes something like: “We need to provoke a psychosocial revolution in the human species, the likes of which rids Normie society of all it’s prejudices and biases towards men. THEN, when can go about not simply changing laws and policies, but building A Red Pill Kingdom Of Heaven on Earth, free of all tragedy and pain”. Such an assumption fails to take cognizance of at least one inconvenient reality though… System Justification https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21802-017 Or, as Morris Fiorana has observed: “We humans are hardwired to be politically liberal, and socially conservative. That is: We want to live our lives and pursue our desires without being hassled or impeded, AND we’re also not automatically inclined for life to change drastically, in a very short period of time”
Thus, it’s not surprising that The MRM’s dream of awakening The Revolutionary they believed to be asleep within an alleged silent majority found itself shattered beyond all salvation by 2019, just as The BBC’s attempt to trigger a liberal democratic revolut against The 3rd Reich in Nazi Germany fell flat on it’s face, never to get back up
Severely diminishing the influence of not just Feminisism, but that of Illiberal Wokeness over the public is a far wiser and more achievable goal for those of us who are Post-MRM to pursue
31:00-31:46 There’s nonetheless a deep commitment to the principles of textbook liberalism(Equality before the law, unimpeded access to opportunity, and prosperity for one and all. Regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, creed,or sexual orientation)at the core of The Post-MRM. We just realize that continuing to screech “Feminisism/Gynocentrism/Hypergamy bad!!” hasn’t been especially effective at winning widespread public support
And that the way to do so is quite simple, even if not easy: Start hammering home all the ways in which many current laws and policies(Quite a few of them brainchildren of lawmakers and lobbyists who are under the influence of Intersectionalisism)aren’t just harmful to men, but actually hamstring the most basic ambitions of the majority of the female population:
-Snagging solid, reliable husbands
-Having kids of their own
-Accessing a career which grants her the flexibility to split motherhood and work, 70/30
-Acquiring affordable housing in a pristine neighborhood for her to raise her children in
I dunno, the problem with saying that protecting the environment is “apolitical” is that it runs in direct opposition to the idea of maximum profits and less oversight.
It isn’t that the right hates the environment but rather they hate the associated costs with not being able to dump chemical waste straight into the local groundwater supply and they definitely hate the fact that it’s the government who’ll stop them with laws and fines even if consumers can’t stay on too of all the shitty things the company does.
7:05-7:13 We here at The MRM have been operating under the (uninterrogated)belief that Intersectional Feminism's proponents are nigh-omnipotent sorcereresses(occasionally sorcerers), who turn docile plebs into blood thirsty misandrists, just by uttering magic lies from behind their microphones. Turns out, the explanation for their success at winning public influence may be simultaneously more prosaic AND more profound:
Intersectionalists provide their prospective converts with not simply one, but SEVERAL roles to play, within the framework of what appears to be, at first glance, a heroic saga.... Powerhouse career women and their male allies, who successfully balance lucrative corporate careers with bravely campaigning for social justice, and thwarting the bigots's schemes to establishing world domination. Bombastic, yet highly seductive and exciting
By contrast, The MRM really only provided our potential converts with one role, in an extremely dreary, unusually unattractive tale... Societal dropout, who's idea of fun is endlessly griping over all the shit in modern life he disapproves of, yet rarely if ever discussing his/they're goals and desires. Or a vision of the world they'd like to see
9:50ish-12:00 We've been, dare I say, Blue Pill in our understanding of the way many Intersectionalists operate, especially in their speeches and writings. To a large degree, they're acting whilst doing so. We know this because the Susan Danuta Walters's of the world(An admitted angry lesbian slithering through the halls of academia, who leads a highly bohemian lifestyle, even when she's off the clock)really are a microsliver of the human race. The vast majority of Intersectionalists are themselves mostly upper middle class-all points beyond, leading highly "traditional lives". Including marriages to people of the opposite sex, and raising kids of their own. At first glance, these folks are indistinguishable from those who comprise The Heritage Foyndation's executive board
Those gigantic crowds who erupt in orgies of virulent rage during Intersectionalist soeeches? They're almost certainly playing a role also. That Woke sympathizing grads of The New School like this chick https://youtu.be/lZs-Eb6H5BU?si=Gkq5Pj8IphUjWfBH 5:20-7:00 still yearn for a white picket fence house, kids(Plural), and a loving husband of her own is testament to this
This misreading poisoned fatally the way most MRAs conceptualized the extrenal world. That in turn tanslated into their/us pursuing a strategy which failed to convince The 80% of the public who's still on the fence-and thus amenable to persuasion-to support us
26:19-26:43 It may behoove those of us who are Post-MRM to imagine ourselves having similar conversations with our descendants, at some future date:
-"Daddy, Mummy says you were an activist back in the day. Does that mean you were kinda like Iron Man or a Jedi Knight"
-"No, sweetness: I was pretty much a real life equivalent to The Continental Op. Go Wiki that name, and pay close attention to this paragraph: "The Continental Op is a master of deceit in the exercise of his occupation. In his 1927 Black Mask story "$106,000 Blood Money" the Op is confronted with a dilemma: should he expose a corrupt fellow detective, thereby hurting the reputation of his agency; and should he also allow an informant to collect the $106,000 reward in a big case even though he is morally certain—but cannot prove—that the informant has murdered one of his agency's clients? The Op resolves his two problems neatly by manipulating events so that the corrupt detective and the informant get into an armed confrontation in which both are killed"
That's how I and most of my peers rolled... We used highly innovative tactics in the neverending quest that is enhancing and safeguarding the cause of liberty for one and all. Both you and every other child today enjoys a richer, freer life than those of who've lived prior, largely thanks to your predecessors's iron commitment to pragmatism and the pursuit of concrete, tangible objectives"
29:56-30:43 The current iteration of The MRM similarly has, since it's inception, operated under an assumption which goes something like: "We need to provoke a psychosocial revolution in the human species, the likes of which rids Normie society of all it's prejudices and biases towards men. THEN, when can go about not simply changing laws and policies, but building A Red Pill Kingdom Of Heaven on Earth, free of all tragedy and pain". Such an assumption fails to take cognizance of at least one inconvenient reality though.... System Justification https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21802-017 Or, as Morris Fiorana has observed: "We humans are hardwired to be politically liberal, and socially conservative. That is: We want to live our lives and pursue our desires without being hassled or impeded, AND we're also not automatically inclined for life to change drastically, in a very short period of time"
Thus, it's not surprising that The MRM's dream of awakening The Revolutionary they believed to be asleep within an alleged silent majority found itself shattered beyond all salvation by 2019, just as The BBC's attempt to trigger a liberal democratic revolut against The 3rd Reich in Nazi Germany fell flat on it's face, never to get back up
Severely diminishing the influence of not just Feminisism, but that of Illiberal Wokeness over the public is a far wiser and more achievable goal for those of us who are Post-MRM to pursue
31:00-31:46 There's nonetheless a deep commitment to the principles of textbook liberalism(Equality before the law, unimpeded access to opportunity, and prosperity for one and all. Regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, creed,or sexual orientation)at the core of The Post-MRM. We just realize that continuing to screech "Feminisism/Gynocentrism/Hypergamy bad!!" hasn't been especially effective at winning widespread public support
And that the way to do so is quite simple, even if not easy: Start hammering home all the ways in which many current laws and policies(Quite a few of them brainchildren of lawmakers and lobbyists who are under the influence of Intersectionalisism)aren't just harmful to men, but actually hamstring the most basic ambitions of the majority of the female population:
-Snagging solid, reliable husbands
-Having kids of their own
-Accessing a career which grants her the flexibility to split motherhood and work, 70/30
-Acquiring affordable housing in a pristine neighborhood for her to raise her children in
For TV shows, Ted Lasso is so good at this. So good. At first, it seems like the show will be a caricature of real life kind of like It's always sunny (but less criminal and more quirky), but then it reels it back in to real life again.
For movies maybe these:
But I'm a Cheerleader
The Sandlot
The Addams Family
A Goofy Movie
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Forrest Gump
Second for Ted Lasso! It shows the “alpha male” side to be fairly ridiculous and not necessary, and shows that positive support, honesty, acceptance, and communication are keys to building better relationships, for both men and women, I might add.
Don't forget forgiveness. The way they made every single character have real humanity in that show. Honestly I might comfort watch it tonight. Been a hard day.
What a weird article. Makes sweeping conclusions like “women are fine with trans” issues, casually ignoring the ~50% that responded unsure or negatively.
The numbers are generally evenly split positive-to-negative and whilst, yes men are between 5-10% or so more likely to respond negatively, phrasing it in a way where you treat men and women as monoliths isn’t very helpful to addressing the goal of trans positivity.
The numbers are generally evenly split positive-to-negative
For men they are (43% vs 44%). For women a majority (54% vs 31%) believed transphobia was a problem in British society.
treat men and women as monoliths
This is an article discussing demographic based polling data.
I’ll be honest I’m not the biggest fan of most headlines period. In this case, what they’re trying to convey here is that it is not women (as terf rhetoric would imply) who are driving transphobia in the country.
It depends “Is transphobia a problem” is not the same thing as “Are trans people a problem”.
For one thing trans-women seem to get far more hate than trans-men, which could sway things. Also being less exposed to progressive attitudes could also blind people to what trans people face (which would affect men more).
All this to say that the question asked in the study and what the article makes of it are very different things.
Also the spreads put up as evidence are no where near large enough (2/3 points each way) to push the idea that “cis” men are driving the issue (the study didn’t mention gender identity, the article just assumed).
All in all this article feels more like rage bait than anything that would push the discussion on trans rights Vs women’s rights forward in any reasonable way.
It depends “Is transphobia a problem” is not the same thing as “Are trans people a problem”.
I don’t think I understand what point you’re making here.
Also the spreads put up as evidence are no where near large enough (2/3 points each way) to push the idea that “cis” men are driving the issue (the study didn’t mention gender identity, the article just assumed).
There is not a single polling question that shows a difference of 2 or 3 points between men and women. The smallest gap is 5 points. With most being over 10. Further we can be relatively certain how trans men are likely to answer these questions. Why is cis in quotes?
All in all this article feels more like rage bait than anything that would push the discussion on trans rights Vs women’s rights forward in any reasonable way.
The article is a remarkably straightforward reading of the polling data. Why are you framing the discussion as trans rights Vs women’s rights? I know you are not a native English speaker so I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt but this phrasing is concerning.
I think the click baity title jinxed any discussion here.
I’m all for trans people having the right to live as their chosen gender and be left in peace to use the toilets of their choice, but the article clearly slanted it to be a case of “let’s ignore JK Rowling and co and bring this back to being a man problem”. This is from the first paragraph that gives the lens you’re supposed to read the data through.
Now, just to clear up on my origins, I’m a British expat so English is my native language but I’m also painfully aware of the scourge that is the Tory party and the havoc they’re wreaking, and I broadly agree with /u/crypticcoffee regarding the fact that there isn’t really a gender devide when it comes down to who is pushing the war on transgender people, it’s transphobes Vs the rest of us.
The revised title is much cleaner and frankly I agree with what it says, men are generally less accepting of trans people than women.
I’ve seen the world through many lenses, and the most profound moments have been with people who fully see and love me; that takes vulnerability and trust. Focus your time on learning how to be vulnerable, build intentional and meaningful friendships, and heal your relationship with what it means to be feminine.
That’s it right there. It’s about opening yourself and your vulnerabilities to others. Unfortunately, this is often perceived negatively by men. You really have to gauge who you can open up to as some will take advantage of your vulnerability and use it against you. That’s how you end up being bullied at school or at work.
I know because I tend to open up to people and tell them how I feel. I’ve built deep and meaningful relationships with many people, male, female and in-between. I’m not afraid to show my emotions and tell people how I truly feel. But, there have been a few times where I ended up being hurt. Not just by men, but women too. Or being mocked¸ which is extremely difficult because you question yourself a lot when this happens.
What’s especially unfortunate is that it’s not just men that perceive it negatively. I’m reminded of Brené Brown’s Ted Talk quote: youtu.be/psN1DORYYV0?t=16m37s
People think toxic masculinity is just a men’s thing. But it’s not. It’s a whole culture and it involves everybody, even women, who perpetuate the culture.
As others have said, it’s not just men that perceive that negatively; women do also. I can’t recall who said it, but feminism has meant that there are many different ways to be a woman now, but there is still only one socially acceptable way to be a man. The social consequences to men for being emotionally vulnerable can mean the loss of all social connections; I know that I lost about 3/4 of the people I thought were friends when I failed to successfully complete suicide. That creates a very strong disincentive to being vulnerable in the future.
I’m sorry for what happened to you. :( I hope you’re doing way better now.
However, there isn’t just one way to be a man. I think that’s the narrow perception that the concept of masculinity creates.
You don’t have to be any special way or have to do anything special to “be a man”. Just be.
For centuries, men have been defined through wars and combat, were dominant, violent, and were the main bread winners of the house and were considered the smarter of the two sexes. And women were considered lesser beings, unintelligent and unable to make important decisions like voting, and weaker. They were expected to be servile and it was allowed to give them corporal punishment if they do much as talked back. Men were at the top and women were at the bottom. That’s why any man who wasn’t didn’t have the set of characteristics that made them masculine were often bullied and laughed at. Through feminism however, women had nowhere to go but up and thrive.
Suddenly, men weren’t the dominant, smartest bread winners and violence became frowned upon. What was traditionally masculine or the set of characteristics that defined men, also applied to women and some became negative attributes. The lines between femininity and masculinity became blurred.
Women evolved and redefined what it meant to be a woman. And it’s basically to just be yourself and do your best to be a good role model. And honestly that could apply to anybody. Not just women.
We need to stop trying to define “what it takes to be a man” and just be. Anyone who doesn’t accept that is doomed to stay in the past and not evolve with the rest of society and live in constant frustration.
That’s it there, as a younger man most of the relationships I’ve been in end around 1-3 months in when I start trusting them and open up more emotionally. They almost always start ignoring me, ghost me or tell me it’s not working out.
It makes you really just lose confidence in yourself as a person, when you’re reserved they want you they want your body, once you open up and you’re vulnerable even once everything changes all of the sudden.
I’m lucky to have a girlfriend who doesn’t think like that, the fact that she is part of LGBT community probably helps.
I know more than one of these men that women would rather not take a chance with... The JR/AT/JP/TradWife/dudebro types. When I asked my girlfriend about the choices, she chose 'bear' immediately, and specifically called out someone we knew, saying, "Would YOU want me to encounter <dudebro> in the forest if I didn't know him?" And she was right -- I'd prefer she choose the bear...
And that's tragically fucking sad that someone I know is so far down the 'dudebro' rabbit hole that I wouldn't leave my GF alone with him in a compromised position.
Men's Liberation
Top