I personally don’t like how the top left one starts at 2005, unlike every other graph, but they all have the same x scale. (I nitpick things sometimes)
not surprising. the american right is specifically catered to address male grievances.
Much like the left caters to women and minorities… good point.
This data is the World world, not just “America world”.
Also, if men are going right, then the left needs to step up their offering.
“When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
While this is true, it’s also true that pendulum swings can go further in the opposite direction than equality.
While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film, at the end when things are going back to the seemingly good way, the men in Barbieland ask if they can have a seat on the supreme court and are told no, which is then explained as Barbieland being a mirror to the real world such that as there’s increased equality in the real world then equality for men in the mirror would increase.
Apparently the writers weren’t familiar with the fact there’s four women on the supreme court right now and a woman has been on the court since 1981 (around twice as close to the creation of Barbie than to the present day).
Even in the context of its justifiably imbalanced equality it failed to be proportionally imbalanced.
There’s interesting research around how the privileged underestimate the degree to which the good things that happen to them are because of privilege, but that at the same time the underprivileged overestimate how often the bad things which happen are because of bias. In theory both are ego-preserving adaptations. But it also means that either side is going to have a difficult time correctly identifying equality from their relative subjective perspectives.
While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film
You mean self aware, hyperbolic satire?
They know there have been women on the supreme court. It was a reference to second wave feminism, and inverted because that was the joke.
While you are welcome to your take, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and here’s the writer/director responding to that very scene:
Li: Speaking of those video clips, let’s talk more about the ending. Can you tell me about the decision to have the Barbies and Kens reach, not a definitive solution, but kind of a détente? President Barbie, played by Issa Rae, does not allow Ken a seat on the Supreme Court. They’re still figuring things out.
Gerwig: We’re all still figuring things out—that’s part of it. But the only thing I could ever give anyone is that they’re all still in the mess. Maybe it’s a little better for the Kens. You don’t want to tell people how to watch things, but at the end of the movie, the production design incorporates some of Ken’s fascinations into Barbie Land. Like, the perfection is not as beautiful as the thing that started blending everything together. I remember when we went to shoot the finale, when we all walked on set, we were like, This is the most beautiful it’s ever been.
It was a film about plastic dolls from a corporation trying to seem less like a big bad corporation. If you’re using the Barbie movie as evidence in an actual philosophical debate around other human beings having equal rights, you have bigger problems in life.
Philosophy is all about finding meaning in common life, why shouldn’t we use the barbie movie?
Do you like having rights? Probably. Would other people like the same rights? Absolutely. Do people who want rights deserve your ire because of a movie? Fuck no.
I wasn’t commenting on the conclusions, only the source of the analogy.
Because pop culture corporate feminism isn’t actual meaningful feminism, it is an entirely different beast the serves to reinforce the patriarchy.
How does it do that?
Nice quote. Won’t win over men who are shifting Right because of consistent targeted alienation in involvement from the Left
If other people having rights is “targeted alienation”, then what should we call denying those people rights based on things they can’t control? Because that sounds like actual targeted alienation.
Read my comment again, slowly. What does “alienation in involvement” mean?
If uplifting groups of oppressed people to an equal standard is alienating to you, then you are falling into the tolerance paradox, and you should probably stop that.
You’re straw manning here, that’s not what he said at all.
He’s referring to the knee jerk lesser treatment of men, because their men, because some other men have done bad shit. If you’re constantly grouped in with the worst of a group just for existing, of course you get sucked into that group.
Hard to Strawman, a Slippery Slope. I was merely pointing out it’s a Slippery Slope without whipping out my Fallacies.
Correct. Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Edit: A benefit to one group does not mean a detriment to others. This is not a zero sum game.
The funny thing is that the left could offer so many things for men:
- address mental health issues
- paternal leave / support for fatherhood
- Less dangerous work
- rehabilitation in prisons
- a free lamborghini
- address homelessness
All of which are mostly men issues.
So we should just let ‘minorities’ suffer? The term appeasement comes to mind, as I don’t know what else you could be advocating here.
Why not both? Benefit to minorities and benefit to majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Let me get this straight, if you have food to survive, and someone else who doesn’t have food wants some food, not even your food, just some food, you need more food before they get any at all?
Did … did you even read my post? What is going on?
Let me re-write it using your analogy.
Why not both? Food for minorities and food for majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Is it really worse? Or does it just hurt your feels when women can decide something on their own?
Name one thing thats gotten better for men in 50 years.
being gay is more accepted. there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings, expressing yourself in fashion/makeup, joining in traditionally feminine careers like
nursing/teaching (both of which have exploded in the past 50 years). just to name a fewthey also haven’t used the draft in 50 yearsedit: striked through things are either factually incorrect (nursing) or more nuanced than my original comment implied (military draft)
being gay is more accepted.
Fair. A win for all.
there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings
Not the wider experience. Men are still stigmatised for expressing themselves. Example: how often do men get to be emotionally vulnerable in a public setting compared to women?
joining in traditionally feminine careers like nursing/teaching
This is flat out wrong, it’s actually getting worse.
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/gender-equality-and-through-teaching-profession
Sex ratios in healthcare occupations: population based study.
they also haven’t used the draft in 50 years
That’s because there are enough men who are financially destitute, who sell their lives into the military.
Don’t need a draft when there is enough blood money going around.
Here’s 3.
- Addressing men’s mental health. Normalizing therapy and talking about issues.
- Promoting ideals and examples of healthy intimate relationships: communication, setting boundaries, etc.
- Moving a way from the insecure, performative, fucked up version of “masculinity” – e.g. “I can’t wear pink, play with dolls with my kid, or bake because those things are feminine”.
Yeah, fuck men who want to wear blue and play with cars. Being a man isn’t allowed. Unless you accept feminization, you’re the enemy. No wonder men choose to vote for the bad guys, when the “good” side demand that they play a role as weak.
Why do things need to get better for men? Things have been pretty excellent for men for a very very long time.
- high suicide rate
- male loneliness has always been terrible and it’s on the rise
- 19 out of 20 deaths at the work place are men
- most likely to have poor work-life balance
- most likely to be imprisoned
- most likely to be homeless
- most likely to NOT get custody of the kids they love
Pretty excellent, aye? These men just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Why not both? Benefit to women, and benefit to men.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
You’re not wrong, but the wage gap? Not going to close if we give everyone a raise. It would be the same wage gap.
I’m pretty sure that by this point most reasonable people have realized that the wage gap is a myth, so that’s probably not your best example.
The gender pay gap is insignificant and inconsequential compared to the income differences between working and owning classes. Also, much of the pay gap is due to men culturally tending to not have the option of escaping the grindset. “Honey I’m going to quit my job and do something that doesn’t alienate me, yes it’s going to pay less” is not something universally accepted by wives.
Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Because if everyone only voted for the things that benefit them, then it’s possible to end up in a situation that’s worse for everybody. If the majorities repeatedly votes for a small benefit to themselves and a large detriment to everyone else, this is basically guaranteed to happen. This is also why voting out of spite is a bad idea.
Example: Let’s examine a population consisting of 60% white people and 60% Christians, uncorrelated (so 36% white Christians, 24% nonwhite Christians, 24% white non-Christians, and 16% nonwhite non-Christians). This population is making two votes: one that will be Very Bad for nonwhites, and one that will be Very Bad for non-Christians, with a small benefit to white people or Christians respectively. Both will pass, which results in:
-
36% of the population (white Christians) gets two small benefits
-
48% of the population (white non-Christians and nonwhite Christians combined) gets a small benefit and something Very Bad for them
-
16% of the population (nonwhite non-Christians) gets two Very Bad results passed against them
So the overall result is negative for 64% of the population, despite everyone voting for their interests and everyone voting! This is because the legislation was more bad for the minority than it was good for the majority.
Bonus: I believe you can use this to prove that you can use a sequence of legislation to get into literally any position you want if everyone votes strictly for things that help them, and I saw a good YT video on that topic, but I can’t find it right now.
If the majorities repeatedly votes for … a large detriment to everyone else
I never argued for this. It is possible to vote in a commensalistic manner.
Only if the appropriate legislation is available to vote on. If the only legislation available is something that hurts you a little and helps someone else a lot, it may be in society’s best interest to vote for it. If you were in a culture that encouraged that, your actions would be repaid by others doing the same, eventually securing large gains for everyone. This is the opposite of my example above, but the math works out the same.
Essentially, there are situations in which the logical choice is to vote for something that hurts you, or to not vote for something that helps you. (Zero-sum-like situations are especially likely to have this occur.) Over a long period of time, what matters is how much each bill helps society overall, not how much it helps you in particular. (Yes, this stops working if the other groups won’t do the same for you.)
-
We tried that, ended up with a bunch of grifters coming in, doing a bunch of damage, and then making “why I left the left” videos.
There is a path of healing but it’s not going to happen until they address their white supremacy and take it behind the shed.
white supremacy and bring it behind the shed.
Fair.
So, this is the predicament for men:
Honestly if not being a fascist piece of shit is that big of a deal breaker you kind of deserve it.
This just in: all men are fascists.
No, all Trump supporters are fascists. I know you know how to read. No one said all men were fascist, only the ones who choose to be conservative and/or throw their support behind a self professed dictator.
No, all Trump supporters are fascists.
Fair, but this left-right / men-women divide isn’t just an American issue. Take another look at the OP image.
Yes, kill all men. Bring on the patricide, then we’ll go after the gamers next. None shall be spared the wrath of the left.
This “data” is hilarious. You should read the article it’s attached to. They throw these charts up and then just use 4 or 5 anecdotes to take a victory lap for conservatism.
not fix these grievances mind you, but exploit them
The color choice makes me angry!!
As a Canadian, it makes sense to me!
Makes sense literally everywhere which isn’t the US
If it had used “Left” it would. The established color of “Liberal” is yellow, and liberals are people who believe society should be run for profit.
Only in Germany. Our liberals are blue. Our social democrats are green. Our greens are red because of an alliance with the social democrats.
This is an opinion piece they are really really reaching with.
Conservatives have been running this for a few days now but it just doesn’t add up. At least for the US it flies in the face of all published polling, including what they claim as sources. Unless you look at Gen Z men skewing independent and take that as them becoming more conservative because you only see the political spectrum as D/I/M.
But that’s not what being an independent means. It isn’t a party. It’s literally not having a party.
I forgot to add, there’s also the Roe effect. The overturning of Roe has pushed women left in the US.
@BuddyTheBeefalo i wonder how good are those data, and how much overfiitting is going on…
FYI the 2nd web.archive.org link just links to a locked article page.
ugh, sorry
Still a broken link
not on my machine:
Hmm maybe just a mobile Firefox issue.
I don’t think this is new. The right has always been more masculine and the left more feminine. That’s why we need a bit of both.
Have you considered that women may lean more left because they are generally more oppressed under the conservative status quo? Women are progressive because they largely need to be.
No, we don’t need a right wing at all. Balance is not a virtue in and of itself, that’s like saying we need a balance of fascism and antifascism.
What a narrow-minded, moronic thing to say. If this is how you see the world, I pity you and desperately hope you have no influence or power which impacts anyone’s life in the real world.
“Arbitrary social constructs that have previously existed have previously existed, which is why we should carry them forward.”
Most of the reason people think this is because they don’t know history and the periods and cultures where women were badasses prior to patriarchal rewriting of history.
Cultures like the Minoans where women were paid equal to men for the same work, could divorce on their own, and seemingly felt safe from sexual violence given they walked around in outfits that accentuated their exposed breasts. A culture that had indoor plumbing over a thousand years before the Romans.
People like Nefertiti, the only woman in the history of Egypt depicted in the smiting pose who upended the entire religion and lines of succession such that there’s a pharaoh who follows with the only apparent qualification being that he’s married to her firstborn daughter. Had she been successful with the proposed second marriage to the Hittites it would have led to the largest kingdom in the region’s history - and without a single battle.
Or Paduhepa, the “great lady” of the Hittites in the time of Ramses II who was not only conducting diplomatic relations with other countries but was co-signing treaties with her husband.
Or Deborah (meaning ‘bee’), the prophetess and leader of the Israelites early on. Tracing back to a period when the archeology of an apiary in Tel Rehov indicates there was potentially awareness that the hive was ruled by a queen.
Most people, men included, have a false picture of history as one in which men built great empires that spanned the world. But this ignores survivorship bias and the great filter on our history by patriarchal revision of earlier norms. We only know of all of the above because of relatively recent archeology. Nefertiti was stricken from kept Egyptian history. Deborah precedes Asa deposing his grandmother the “Great Lady” and Josiah’s banning of goddess worship. We’re only left with the scraps and poorly covered up remnants of greatness for women, while male accomplishments are hyped up or literally stolen - such as Amenhotep II taking credit for an earlier female Pharoh’s accomplishments and he and his father trying to erase her from history.
So we’re operating from what’s effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It’s not “how it’s always been” at all. It’s just how it’s been recorded as having been by one side.
I originally wasn’t going to respond to this post, but there’s so much revisionism, omissions, and outright inaccuracies here that I ultimately couldn’t ignore it, and that’s just when it comes to the Minoans and Hittites, which I’m most familiar with. As such, I assume your comments about the others are equally one-sided in order to serve the really odd, unnecessary narrative you have going on here.
First off, we know very little about the Minoans, since, y’know, Linear A hasn’t been deciphered yet, but from what we do know, they had an incredibly gender-segregated society, far more than we have today. In lists of family members, for example, the men and the women are in completely separate lists, which would be pretty weird for a place that didn’t have “arbitrary social constructs” like gender roles, and women seem to have been forbidden from most traditionally male jobs in their society.
Their art emphasized sexual dimorphism, and for you to assume that nakedness of the breasts in clothing trends implies the same thing for them that it would in our society today just adds to the evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
They did have indoor plumbing, so at least you’re right about that.
For the Hittites it’s even worse, since their code of laws enforced separate punishments for crimes against men and women, with crimes against men carrying much more stringent penalties than crimes against women. Also, Hittite men wielded a large amount of legal power over their wives, which is indicated in their marriage ritual, where the man would “take” his wife so he could “possess” her afterward. Yes, it’s better than the ancient Greeks a thousand years later, but by how much is debatable.
Further, tawananna (queens) only ruled when their kings were away, or after they had died until the next king was chosen, and not a single queen is listed in Hittite histories as a legitimate successor to the dynasty at any point. Their role in court was mostly religious, and while they did conduct diplomatic relations with other countries, to act like Hittite queens were on par with Hittite kings in any way is completely false.
So we’re operating from what’s effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It’s not “how it’s always been” at all. It’s just how it’s been recorded as having been by one side.
While there are definitely plenty of excellent examples of strong female leaders throughout history, and their achievements should certainly be celebrated, the ridiculous Bronze Age revisionism you’ve written here sounds much more like propaganda than what’s actually attested in the “historical record”.
First off, we know very little about the Minoans, since, y’know, Linear A hasn’t been deciphered yet, but from what we do know, they had an incredibly gender-segregated society, far more than we have today. In lists of family members, for example, the men and the women are in completely separate lists, which would be pretty weird for a place that didn’t have “arbitrary social constructs” like gender roles, and women seem to have been forbidden from most traditionally male jobs in their society.
There were distinct gender roles, all the way to the top (such as the lead religious figure as female and the lead ruling figure as male), but in accounting records where there was overlapping labor they were both paid the same (don’t need to know Linear A to read numbers).
For the Hittites it’s even worse
You’d be wise to keep in mind that these kingdoms cover a very long period of time when history and social norms shift around. A given individual in one generation does not reflect the society as a whole, but in turn the society at other periods doesn’t necessarily reflect all the individual generations within it.
We can’t look at America as a whole and use the records of women being denied the right to vote at one period of time to reflect a woman’s role in America in a different time.
The historical reality is that Paduhepa was co-signing the treaty of Kadesh with Egypt alongside her husband, when the Egyptian pharoh’s wife was not. Whether or not that was anomalous in the context of the entire Hittite empire is besides the point of whether or not at that point in time it was a political reality.
to act like Hittite queens were on par with Hittite kings in any way is completely false
I didn’t say that. But I did say that she cosigned the first treaty in the historical record, and I think you’ll have a hard time showing another example since where the wife of the ruler was co-signing a treaty unilaterally.
Their role in court was mostly religious
Here I think your modernism may be showing. In cultures where the chief deity was a goddess and the chief religious official for that goddess was the queen, you don’t think maybe in antiquity the impact that religious role would have had would be more than superficial?
For example, you have Akhenaten inscribing in the dedication of Amarna an assurance that his wife didn’t tell him to build the city there, but the Aten himself. So clearly at the time there were allegations that his wife, who had been depicted worshipping the Aten directly without her husband before this, was influencing his building of an entire new capital for the country.
Much like the paradigm outlined in Marinatos’s Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess, bringing us full circle to another society with empowered women within their society.
In fact, in pretty much every place you find one of the empowered women in antiquity there’s a connection to female deities.
So I think you underappreciate those “religious roles” in relation to the topic at hand.
I’m not trying to be mean, but this might be the single dumbest comment I’ve ever seen.
Nah, I’ve seen far dumber. Real talk, though: What value does conservatism have to offer? I’ve yet to see any actual principles behind this supposed political ideology beyond “fuck you, got mine.”
For the record, I’m not a conservative. I just did some research and drew on personal experience from interacting with them.
In general principle, conservatism is resistance to change, which has its place when some liberals want change that isn’t actually a good thing.
They tend to be small-government, in favor of low-tax low-spending economic policies that, while they don’t help much with the class problems we’re facing, do make commonfolk feel less robbed by the government. Whose bright idea was it to put “this is how much you’d make without taxes” on the paychecks anyways? If you ask me, you should get paid the negotiated salary and then taxes are an extra expense on top of that.
Conservatives often concern themselves with the national debt, which I don’t often hear talked about on the left. It’s kinda like how the left cares about global warming which the right often ignores. If it goes too far out of control, it could hit a breaking point, and both sides will tell you their respective issue is already out of control and the breaking point isn’t too far off.
They like the first amendment. I know liberals often do too, but conservatives are stronger supporters of it. It lets hate speech through, but it also helps to prevent 1984.
They like the second amendment. Yeehaw, guns, which are responsible for a lot of big-headline crises these days. But the reason they support the right to bear arms is so that we can have a revolution if the government goes too far. I’m almost surprised liberals aren’t the pro-gun party with all the eat-the-rich rhetoric.
Where liberals went ACAB, conservatives supported the police. Yes, the police system has major issues that need a rework, but if everyone went ACAB when it began, there would be a crime spree while we struggle to come up with a new system that isn’t just going to have the same issues again.
While liberals are on the forefront of making things better for marginalized minorities, conservatives focus on making sure majorities aren’t left behind. When it isn’t straight-up fighting liberals’ efforts for equality, that is. The most prominent of these that comes to mind is Affirmative Action, especially in college admissions, which didn’t just make it easier for most minorities to make it into college. It also made it harder for white and asian students to get in.
And lastly, conservatives, being the enemy of liberals, are going to think more critically about any liberal policies or messages. If they can help it, they’re not going to let you be blinded by your ideals into pushing a law that’s actually going to cause major problems, nor be whipped up into a frenzy by a story that manipulates the facts. Since they already consider you enemies, they’re in a position to make this kind of criticism much more freely, because they don’t feel the threat of being alienated by their party for going against the narrative. And you do the same for them. It’s a shame the rebuttals have such a hard time crossing the gap, though.
I don’t know about beautiful data. That’s scary data :/
Do you know a community that fits?
No no, that’s not what I meant. I wasn’t trying to have a go at you. It fits here perfectly. I was just upset at the trend it was showing :\
Nah, here is fine, the data is presented beautifully.
+1 this. This community isn’t about agreeing with the data, it’s about how it’s presented
Except the time frame is shifted for each graph
The data is beautiful, it’s the implications that are ugly
It’s only beautiful in that is well visualized. The data itself is scary.
The graps don’t represent the same amount of time while they are there for comparison. I wouldn’t call that well visualized.
This data is anything but beautiful. Its horrendously laid out. Not intuitive in the slightest.
What happened in South Korea in 2015?
the government stopped putting the chemicals in the water that makes the frogs gay
Gamergate idiology hit hard there. There’s recently been some conspiracy nonsense about a hand gesture in games there.
There’s recently been some conspiracy nonsense about a hand gesture in games there.
par for the course: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate
Uhhh, it’s a little bit different.
The hand gesture in question is a pinching motion using the index and thumb finger, which had been used as a symbol in the now-defunct Megalia, one of Korea’s largest radical feminist online communities, to ridicule the size of Korean men’s genitals.
Yes, it is different.
Until there’s a liberal space for men, it’s going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives. There, they will be indoctrinated by weird, stupid conservative bullshit that has nothing to do with any of this.
Surely this is intersectional though right? Not all men are the same or have the same experience of political issues. I can see how straight white cis men might feel like these spaces aren’t for them. But queer men might feel differently about this. Black men also.
Also if you feel like existing spaces aren’t for you, then free to create your own spaces. There’s nothing holding you back.
Nearly all leftist spaces welcome straight white cis men. Anti-feminists are not welcome.
The left is the only place that is safe to open up as a man.
The right is only safe if you fit a very specific definition of manliness, one that is unrealistic. However that illusion sends millions of the gullible and impressionable chasing after an unobtainable standard.
On the far-right you’ll get punched if you like making caramel and baking cakes. The close right just calls you a slur instead.
There are few things more alienating to the wide range of male expression than the right wing.
I grew up as a conservative and was never accepted. Opening up, being emotionally vulnerable, expressing “feminine” (ie non traditional) interests: every time it lost me any sort of male friendship. I was excluded, mocked and called homophobic slurs.
I’m a cisgender straight white man but because I was a square peg to their traditional round hole I was an outcast.
The right is the cause of male depression and loneliness. It enforces the gender norms that make men feel they have to be a rock, provide for family, die for their country, shut up about their feelings.
The only safe place for men to open up is on the left.
deleted by creator
The overwhelming majority of all the right-wing men I’ve ever met have been a thousand times more miserable, angry, and bottled up than their left counterparts. The right wing inherently fosters that kind of existence with its rigidity, judgment, paranoia, and aggression.
I grant that my statement wasn’t particularly nuanced, but I firmly believe it is generally accurate for the overwhelming majority of the male population.
Starting by removing the association between masculinity and being a bigot by changing male social behavior seems to be the logical first step. The change absolutely has to come from within. Starting by not tolerating it when your buddies say bigoted shit seems insignificant but is a huge step in the positive direction, and every small change counts.
Definitely!
Gangs are inclusive and welcoming even if they haze you and commit crimes. People who feel left out gravitate toward unconventional solutions to conventional problems.
There isn’t? Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.
What are you missing?
Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.
That is true, absolutely. And one must not diminish the situation of women under the patriarchy by any means.
Unfortunately, the patriarchy damages all of us in different ways. That does not contradict feminism but, in my estimation, completes the view of the patriarchy, it’s effects, and how we perpetuate it generation after generation. I think if we wish to be anti-sexist and pro-feminist and ever hope to abolish the patriarchy, we must understand it as fully as possible.
If you care to explore the topic further, “The Will to Change” by Bell Hooks might be worth a read.
So you don’t think there are any issues with how men are treated on the left?
As progressive as the left can be, men have been left behind and are still often expected to ‘just be a man’, while dealing with double standards and sometimes being treated like they’re inherently bad.
Edit: Copying what vzq has said to me for visibility, as this is the exact problem. Do I sound like the angry toddler in this discussion?
“I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.” You are being treated based on how act. You act like a spoiled toddler that thinks he’s owed some consideration by strangers.
I believe these issues exist in some places in the world like the usa.
Personally as a cis man i dont experience these issues at all. I am more radical left leaning then my sisters.
The right just appear like some intolerant macho cult. They are the last people i would feel safe.
It has to be set though I recognize many fellow men do exhibit this weird macho psychology as well as laziness and illusion that they somehow know me or what i want. I never consider that to have political grounds.
If i have a choice to interact with either sex i am Biased to chose the women because i feel like there actually perceive and speak to me as individual rather then pretending i am their best friend cardboard cutout.
In my experience women are more honest as sales people and more helpfull as a frontdesk clerk. This is bias and exceptions exist. I myself am an exceptions. Statistical perception though…
I haven’t heard another guy talk about other dudes assuming you are just like them/same politics etc, but its something I’ve experienced a lot. I often have to break the news I’m not a safe space for whatever bs they are spewing.
How exactly are men treated by the left? Perhaps you can give some examples so people understand what your problem is.
No, I honestly do not. I do my level best to treat everyone as a person and when I mess up I apologize and try and do better. That works pretty well.
If you are treated like you are inherently bad, you may be not as good as you think you are.
Edit: nice edit man. Totally not what an angry toddler would do.
Thanks for proving their point lol
You just flipped blame on the individual without even attempting to understand anything about them.
I know what they type. They are responsible for that at least, aren’t they?
Thanks for proving my point, what have I said that’s bad?
I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.
You’ve tried to tell me that I do act like that, despite the fact you have absolutely nothing to back that up… The exact problem.
I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.
You are being treated based on how act. You act like a spoiled toddler that thinks he’s owed some consideration by strangers.
Again, just disregarding how men feel, where does that get us?
I absolutely do not act in the way that men are accused of, but blanket statements about “MeN BaD” are so frequent and widely accepted, and it’s just ignored or even praised.
Can you give a more precise example? I hope you do not mean individuals who write stuff online. In what way do left oriented organisations treat all men like they are bad?
If you are treated like you are inherently bad, you may be not as good as you think you are.
Ah, blame the victim. Men get treated a certain way so it must be their fault…
There’s no victim here. Just a guy with “feelings”.
Ahh, its you. You’re the problem.
What is a liberal space for men? That means nothing.
Liberal, as in, believing in liberty. Freedom. How many mens spaces do you know of, where a man is completely free to open up, with full liberty and freedom from immediate consequences, about feelings they may have inside of them?
There’s actually not a lot. It’s a reflection of masculine indoctrination, where men in many places are made to feel like they almost need to be ready to become a soldier at any moment. Guarded, careful. It’s no good, unless your country is actually at war.
That has nothing to do with spaces. It’s toxic masculinity. And you combat that by being the change you want to see.
Even if there was a space like that, toxic masculinity would ruin it if it wasn’t addressed. But you might just be looking for group therapy.
Men will blame anything else for their problems before ever admitting that toxic masculinity might be the cause of their problems
Removed by mod
Lol.
So, spaces that encourage toxic masculinity do exist, and they are fully aware of their ruination. See: 4chan.org.
edit: I see some of the confusion here, since 4chan is seemingly liberal, due to having no formal rules. However, that is an illusion. A man is not actually free to say anything they like without consequences there. It’s just that the norms will be enforced by the community, instead of any kind of authority. This is not actual liberty and freedom, simply indoctrination cloaked in an illusion of freedom.
Real freedom would allow a man to express something like sympathy, or being against gamergate, and express that opinion in peace. The reality of such spaces does not actually permit this.
It seems liberal and free, but in effect it is not. This is similar to how Trump seems to be strong sometimes, but in reality is weak and cowardly. Toxic masculinity loves its illusions.
where men in many places are made to feel like they almost need to be ready to become a soldier at any moment.
sounds more like what would happen at a conservative place to me.
Only place I feel that way is at a gay bar. But I’m gay and live in Texas. I don’t think I’m the reason for the spike.
Lemmy is pretty good, for the most part. Depends which community of course, decentralized and only loosely controlled and all.
This thread proves the opposite.
Lemmy is a big place. You think anywhere online is going to be perfect like your picture of heaven or something? Get real.
Removed by mod
I read through some of your comment history and found this comment chain which I think is what you’re referring to here.
Women love psychological manipulation and think they are the hot shit, until they start going “good guy”-less by their 30s and the “beauty” starts to subside. Too much high school teen garbage, and most have not mentally grown out of it.
Even if you say you don’t hate women, it’s pretty clear you don’t like a certain kind of women, and don’t make much of a distinction between them and everyone else.
True masculinity (said by certain kind of people to be toxic) is about resilience, emotional control, inner strength, confidence and the ability to withstand life’s hardships without resorting to insecurity (dissing manhood) or abusive behaviours (psychological manipulation).
We are getting tired of hearing we are toxic, disposable and physical tools for others. And I must tell you this – the devolving and rotting feminist movement is exactly what is causing the explosion of the other extreme end, redpillers. A lot of people are starting to disapprove of these extremes.
Men are not “toxic” because they are not as emotionally charged or like vulnerability. Men are simply hardwired to be more resilient, calm, less hysterical, and protect their emotional sanctity the exact way women protect their physical sanctity.
Wouldn’t it be the truly masculine thing to do if you just didn’t take all of the accusations of toxic masculinity to heart? Shouldn’t be be using your calm, resilient, less hysterical intellect to try to understand just why so many people seem to have a problem with what you’re saying or how you’re saying it? Don’t you want to have the ability to withstand life’s hardships without resorting to insecurity (worrying about perceived threats to men’s rights) or abusive behaviours (assigning traits to a group for the actions of individuals)? I don’t want to imply men aren’t allowed to complain or have problems, but it seems you’re either betraying your ideals for what a man should be, or are trying to hold all men to an unrealistic standard.
Lemmy (and leftist instances) as a leftist space is fine with ostracizing men’s rights because feminists maliciously club it with redpillers/incels.
As far as I can tell, this paragraph is about all the actual men’s rights issues you’re talking about:
All I have seen is double standards whenever men’s issues need to be talked about versus women’s issues. Mental health issues, women pedophiles/predators versus men pedophiles/predators, or male SA versus female SA, military recruitments, physical risk jobs like ones at construction sites, women publicly allowed to get away with sexual harassment or roadside flirting, or men being called creeps for being nice to children but women are “inclusive” and never creepy, et al. And any debate is intentionally and dishonestly avoided by women and feminists on these things by clustering men’s rights with redpill manosphere movement.
which is mostly about double standards, unless you just really want to interact with children, flirt with women in public, and not feel pressured to take certain jobs. Unless your idea of a leftist is someone like Bill Maher, I’m pretty sure most leftists would be pro-(mental) healthcare, pro- equality under the law, pro-union/workplace safety, anti-pedophilia, and generally anti-war.
Removed by mod
Can you give a few examples of what men can’t say or do completely freely in liberal places?
Sure. Go over into 4chan and try any behavior they would describe as “white knighting” or “simping”. You will rapidly experience some social consequences intended to dissuade that behavior.
Experiencing social consequences for saying something people disagree with is not infringing on your freedom. Unless they band together and try to go further than simply not liking what you have to say, how is that stopping men from saying their opinion on 4chan?
Independently, I wouldn’t call 4chan a liberal place. As far as I know, 4chan started and participated in activities in the past that go far beyond simply not liking an opinion. They doxxed, harassed and threatened people, among other things. And with support from many people on that platform.
Liberal in the traditional sense, as in, believing in liberty, I’m being technical. Not meaning “leftist” the way the word has been rebranded by right-leaners. So, their adoption of “no rules” is ultra-liberal, or libertarian perhaps.
And all social consequences are social. Drawing a distinction between legal and social is arbitrary. Suffering is suffering, and employing it to control dissenting voices is fundamentally illiberal. If you can prevent certain messages from appearing on your platform, you have successfully executed a form of control.
Thus, their ultra-liberty is an illusion. It’s not real.
The only places I have been close to that are “toxic” male places. All boys clubs, drinking clubs, rugby clubs.
But women see them as toxic and label then like that. But if you talk to them you get more toxic than from these clubs they aren’t a part of that tell you how horrible they are.
So, I’m not a woman, nor am I overly feminine, and I still call out toxic bullshit when I see it. If you want to say the problem is women/feminists though, fine whatever, if we cleaned up our own shit first, we might be able to make that stick. But when we’re bastards and they’re bitches, and we complain, we’re kinda the fucked up ones, y’know? Since we were supposed to be strong in the first place.
Unless you just think life is shit and everyone should get used to it. Then, just move to Russia or something, for everyone’s sake.
I feel you man, I know people that grew up in environments like that, and if you are not temperamentally suited for them they will chew you up.
I found it got a lot better when I moved out on my own and could choose who I spent time and who I did not. But not everyone can do that when they need the most.
Are you implying liberal spaces deal with more toxic masculinity? Because that’s sounds more like conservative spaces to me. In my experience men are much more welcome to be vulnerable and talk about their feelings in liberal spaces. If you can’t find liberal spaces “where a man is completely free to open up, with full liberty and freedom from immediate consequences” I can’t help but wonder if perhaps you and your options are the intolerant ones. Tolerance can not support intolerance and liberal spaces can and should reject intolerance.
I’ve certainly seen my share of crappy behavior (up and including sexual assault unfortunately) in supposedly liberal and leftist spaces.
I don’t compare because I don’t hang out with conservatives , but every instance is one too many.
No, it is specifically illiberal spaces that encourage more toxic masculinity, in a bit of a cycle. While the space itself may be extremely liberal and rules-free, a local culture can take over and enforce those same toxic norms in place of any set of rules. And frequently does. While the space may be ostensibly liberal, in effect it is not, due to the behavior of its community.
This is the majority of mens spaces, unfortunately. Online anyway.
Liberal narratives paint men as aggressive rapists at worst, and toxic manipulative sociopath at best. Liberal narratives onstantly evoke “tHe pATriArcHy” and “tOxic mAsCuLinity” hiding misandry behind pseudointellectualism
Brosif, calling a discussion of the patriarchy misandry makes it clear you don’t know what the patriarchy even is. It hurts everyone.
Brosef, the term “patriarchy” itself is (and has always been) intentionally misleading and inherently misandrist, and has played a huge role in the modern demonization of men as a result. The “academic definition” of the term is irrelevant, as the (fully intended) real world negative consequences of the term for men in the cultural zeitgeist have been systemic and pervasive, as we can see all over this thread.
No
This is the pseudointellectualism I’m talking about. “You don’t actually understand what it ACTUALLY means” while the meanings are clearly obfuscated for the layperson.
‘Toxic masculinity’ is referring specifically to masculinity that is toxic. It’s not referring to masculinity as a whole as toxic.
Pushes in glasses “uuum ackshually that’s not what it means”
Yeah no shit, tell that to the people on social media where the majority of popular discord takes place. And pretending that the meaning of the two isn’t obfuscated is disingenuous. At the end of the day it’s all antipositivists theory garbage that reads more like a political treatise than academic study.
Exactly. Feminist terminology like “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy” has been very carefully chosen to be misandrist enough to result in the intended widespread popular demonization of men that we’ve seen over the past few decades, while also giving feminists enough deniability to gaslight with “that’s not what the terms ackchually mean though”.
The misandry is a feature, not a bug.
Bingo
While those are some examples of “liberal narratives”, there’s also a very real “men are harmed by the patriarchy too” narrative.
I see the problem you see and I agree with you about it, it’s just the narratives you’ve described aren’t the only liberal narratives.
That whole men are hurt by the patriarcy too is a cop-out when people get called out on their bullshit ideology
Until there’s a liberal space for men, it’s going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives.
I mean, they/we also could create these spaces for us, much in the same way women did (and many other groups). And of course it’s easier to fall for reactionary groups when liberal groups are less visible, but it’s still a decision to follow their bullshit.
Shoutout to [email protected] (and similar spaces)
I mean, they/we also could create these spaces
We had these spaces, they were accused of sexism, and forced to open up to everyone, where the female spaces stayed all female. Boyscouts and Girlscouts comes to mind as an example.
It would be great if there was mens clubs to just hang out, drink, talk, play games things like that. In fact there was and they were HUGE but men aren’t allowed them now.
It would be great if boys could have that. Almost like a girls scouts but for boys.
As soon as men try to organize and speak out we get called sexist. If men wanted to start a men only club like women are allowed they would be forced to let women in. Just look at the boy scouts (ignoring the pedophiles) they were forced to allow girls but the girl scouts don’t have to allow boys. Males can’t have anything male only.
As soon as men try to organize and speak out we get called sexist.
That’s simply not true. We have at least one counselling centre in our city that is “boys/young men only” and several “men only” self help groups. I’ve never heard them being called sexist, on the contrary people generally agree that this is a good thing and we need more of this. And they are certainly not forced to include other genders.
There are obviously not enough initiatives like these. But a blanket statement like yours is false and if you make the claim that men are regularly getting called out as sexist for forming liberal safe spaces you should provide some sources (I’m not denying that it happens, it’s just not something I’ve experienced).
Just look at the boy scouts (ignoring the pedophiles)
The goal of boy scouts wasn’t to provide a safe space to explore gender identity or emotions or anything like that. There was no reason to exclude other genders.
Is that the goal of girl scouts, though?
I don’t think so.
What are you trying to say? I don’t know that much about Scouting in the U.S. At least in Germany we didn’t have this gender divide in scouting, but as GSUSA were founded after the BSA I suspect that their goal was to provide scouting for girls because they couldn’t join BSA.
The other guy said men can’t have man-only spaces, referring to Boy Scouts in contrast to Girl Scouts, and you said that Boy Scouts isn’t supposed to be a safe space to explore gender identity or emotions. If Girl Scouts isn’t that kind of thing either, then that sounds like you think men only get to have that kind of man-only space, while women can have whatever.
As a man, if the only man-only spaces available were about gender identity or emotions, I’d probably go to neither. The former because I’m fully comfortable as a man (and the use of the term “gender identity” there implies it’s more for trans people,) and the latter because I don’t have significant issues with my emotions. Frankly, I don’t really mind that most of the clubs and events that interest me are co-ed, but if there was a recurring women-only Minecraft party or something and there was never one for men, I’d be upset about that.
I was saying we could create the missing liberal spaces ourselves. ThePantser said we couldn’t because we’re being called out as sexist when we do that. The only example for that being “boy scouts” which I suppose means BSA, an organization with massive sexual abuse and bullying problems (according to Wikipedia). No idea how they are supposed to be “liberal”.
Whether the girl scouts accept other genders or not has no relevance for that argument. And if it would be fair for them to do that is a completely different discussion because girls are hit by sexism in a completely different way than boys.
the use of the term “gender identity” there implies it’s more for trans people
No, it doesn’t.
if there was a recurring women-only Minecraft party or something and there was never one for men, I’d be upset about that.
And again you are completely ignoring any arguments about why these spaces might make sense.
Women get told they need there own spaces for mental health, women’s issues, to have women’s chat.
Men aren’t allowed those things. They are told they never open up, they are toxic they shouldn’t be acting x,y,z and they should be more like girls.
What you are saying is when all thr fallout occurs then they get help. You are fixing a problem when their could be a solution before it becomes a problem.
The issue is that these spaces are often prime trolling grounds, and you end up having the same discussions over and over until the honest posters move on and only trolls are left.
Which is why the heavily moderated menslib sub on Reddit was so great, because they didn’t put up with that BS.
Agreed. Unfortunately, Lemmy has both design choices and cultural issues that make running heavily moderated communities essentially impossible.
This is it.
Men underperform in things like education and work.
Who gets all the help? Women.
There is so much toxic feminism that doesn’t get attention. A male only shelter got shut down by me because the feminists protested so much until it got shut down.
Counterpoint - men need to be less hung up on gender.
There’s plenty of liberal spaces for people even if not exclusively for men.
As a guy, I don’t need a sign outside saying “Open for men” to know I can go into a store, just “Open” suffices.
While there are aspects of my life that are informed by my biology and its social construct, it’s one of the least defining aspects of who I am as a person. I don’t need it specially recognized.
I’d much rather live in a world where there’s spaces for “people who like RPGs and fantasy” or “people who like tech” over “people who identify as male.” I have a ton in common with the former two, irrespective of gender identities, and very little in common with the latter other than fairly superficial things.
“Hey, pee standing up? Me too! We have so much in common we should be friends. Oh, you want to meet up at the bar to watch the latest hockey game? Yeah, that sounds…fun…”
The very idea of a “liberal space for men” is antithetical to my sense of liberalism. We should be liberated from arbitrary notions of identity, not reinforced into them.
Perpetuates the false dichotomy of a linear political spectrum of either liberal or conservative and that in and of itself is one of the reasons for these trends. Liberalism has nothing to offer men. Leftism does.
You might as well be asking men how much they are willing to sacrifice for others vs. look after their own interests. When the inequality gap widens and the majority live below average economically, don’t you think people will tend to become more selfish? That’s all these charts show.
Conservatism is essentially synonymous with patriarchy and on a very shallow level, it’s easy to see how men would choose that over the status quo. That will surely be better for men than this slow attrition of status that comes with ever increasing wealth concentration. This isn’t true but it is an obvious conclusion.
The real question, which this survey completely ignores, conveniently, is what we should all be doing together to better the status quo for all. Because I believe almost everyone except a small and shrinking fraction agrees that current trends are not working for anyone.
Perpetuates the false dichotomy of a linear political spectrum of either liberal or conservative and that in and of itself is one of the reasons for these trends
the graph explicitly takes 1 dimension of the spectrum to look at it in isolation. This is exactly what single graphs do best.
which this survey completely ignores, conveniently
have you looked at the source of the graph?
Here in South Korea - Both the liberal and conservative party are very conservative. It wasn’t until 10-15 years ago that women could even be the “leader” of the house. So the delta in conservative/liberal is more likely to do with economic/war policies with the North than much else (since men get conscripted, and North policies is one of the key differentiators between the 2 parties)
Wouldn’t it be men making the decision on conscription policies though? A more liberal / less sexist government would be more likely to bin that.
The key difference I tend to see between men and women’s issues is that men’s issues are often caused by other men in power. Feminism, ironically enough, can also help with a lot of problems disenfranchised men have.
Sorry I’m rambling a bit.
Men are not a monolith.
Sooooo yes, everything you said is correct, but there’s a missing piece of context: binning the military would mean binning South Korea as we know it, so nobody (liberal or conservative) is in favor of binning it. The lines are much more murky.
Binning a sexist conscription system is not anything close to “binning the military”
It very literally is, in South Korea’s case.
How so?
Beginning to conscript women as well as men does not equate to abolishing the military, or am I missing something?
They could conscript women, but you can imagine how hard it would be for that legislation to pass.
What? Do you want half the army shopping for new shoes to wear in the trenches while the other half has to wait for them at the shopping mall fountain?
Were you trying to be funny, or is that your genuine understanding of women in the millitary?
right. Korean politics seem to come down to “aid vs embargo”. moon jae in was on the aid side, right? I haven’t followed the current prez, what’s their deal?
President Yoon is a fascist that got into power by targeting women and disabled people.
South Korea also has one of the biggest anti-feminism movements in the world. They just eliminated the gender ministry and rolled back protections for women. Not coincidentally, South Korea is Jordan Peterson’s biggest audience outside the US.
The translation of “gender ministry” is completely misleading, I don’t know why they made it that in English because that’s not what it is. In Korean it’s “여성가족부” which means “Woman’s family department”
Fuck them for calling the left liberal. Liberals are the people who sell schools, hospitals, and social services to the lowest bidding private enterprise. A solidly right wing ideology that puts profit over people.
Neo-liberals, actually. Winston Churchill wasn’t doing any of that shit. Classical liberalism is fairly centrist, economically. Some things private, some things public.
there are 2 types of liberal: economical and social
Some people intentionally mix these two up as part of balley and motte argument. Some people mix them up intentionally because they don’t know any better.
This is only going to increase as men watch their quality of life continue to degrade, while they get ignored at best and blamed for everything at worse. Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
Conservatism grows when people are struggling.
Leftism is not the status quo in the slightest. Men currently are far more privledged than women.
Liberal is not leftist.
Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
Ahh yes, because houses are cheaper for women, obviously. /s
This has nothing to do with the person being a man or woman.
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
That “victory after victory” is in large part just women catching up to existing men’s rights.
Remember that woman who murdered her husband and got probation for it? She stabbed him 100+ times! It happened like a week ago too. I’d consider that a win for women being able to murder people, a loss for men, and a loss for that judge.
Exactly. More lenient sentencing is definitely part of female privilege.
Oh wait, no, I mean part of the horrible misogynist practice of “putting women on a pedestal”, of course. Gotta make sure that we frame all of the privilege that being a woman brings as actually just more evidence of how bad men are!
Then why arent feminists protesting for more prison time?
I will gladly support any initiative for more equality in the justice system (even though we are probably not even in the same country).
I am not aware of any initiatives, though. The conservative focus, depending on the country, seems to be on hating foreigners or banning abortions. So I am not sure why anybody would want to vote conservative if they want an equal justice system.
Just today there was a story on the front page of a male domestic abuse survivor who tried to start up a shelter for men, who eventually killed himself because he got treated like shit for it.
Now compare that to resources allocated for women victims of domestic abuse.
1 in 4 women are victims of it, while 1 in 6 men are so its not like its not a huge issue for us either. We went from a society that didnt treat abuse as an issue for anyone to one that has, yet having nothing to support us is “catching up” in your books?
I wrote “in large part”, not “always”.
Of course there are some issues where there should be more support for men. But I am pretty sure female to male domestic violence is not at the top of the list on why these people vote conservative. The conservative “solution” would be to shut down male AND female support in that regard.
Many men can barely afford to live, let alone even think of the joys of previous generations such as home ownership, having a family, or travelling.
this is true
Conservatism grows when people are struggling.
also true
Meanwhile the news is full of victory after victory for women, so of course they’re going to support the status quo more.
I don’t get this argument. “Supporting the status quo” is literally what conservatism is about, no?
I view conservatism more as trying to relive the past. A rose tinted one, that seems appealing to people unhappy with today.
“Supporting the status quo” is literally what conservatism is about, no?
Not when it attempts to violently overthrow the government, no. Liberal=change and Conservative=preserve status quo is outdated and no longer true in most cases/places. e.g. some say that Brexit was quite a “change” for the UK? But in any case it was most definitely not preserving the present status quo.
Mostly conservatism tries to recreate things from ~30 years ago as a nostalgic and optimistic hope that returning to the past will help overcome the current badness, e.g. as a method of combating inflation.
Except on top of it all is the difference between what is said vs. done, e.g. to return to the past economic success in the USA we’d have to increase the top marginal tax rate to 90%, but instead conservatives lowered taxes on the wealthy still further. “Conservatism” is often only the line that the
car salesmenpoliticians sell, same as “Liberalism”, for someone to get themselves into power.
Poor oppressed men. The fact that their side piece can’t get an abortion anymore must really get them down.
Have you considered not being a hateful piece of shit. People like you are why the blue graphs have the direction they have. You would do well to consider whether declaring half the population as evil for no other reason than their gender, can ever lead to a successful result.
There certainly is a hateful piece of shit in this thread, but it’s not me.
But I’m sure if you just keep externalizing instead of working on yourself, things will magically fix themselves for you!
What have i said to deserve your hostile response to me previously? You derided and mocked me simply for sharing how i feel on the issue, when i never said anything negative about women.
This. This is exactly why this stupid gap exists, because of shitty people like you.
“Treat everyone equally” except men fuck them apparently.
You’re assuming a lot things there bubba.
You were pretty clear in your comment bro. Did you mean something else and it came out wrong?
Victory for women? Like how they are losing their reproductive rights and going to jail for miscarriages in America?
I’m surprised the UK still has net positive movement considering we house the Queen of TERFdom.
With the shit show the conservative government has been recently I’m not surprised.
Looks like it went pretty Conservative around the Corbyn era. This is misleading to people who probably think that Tories and Labour are the equivalent of Republicans and Democrats. If they want to show left vs right they should be looking at people leaning towards the likes of UKIP and the Brexit party.
