I think progressives never thought about this because we banked on immigration and demographic change allowing us to win culturally and electorally but the issue is immigrants tend to be overwhelmingly male, that is how Trump won actually he won over a lot of Hispanic,Black,Asian and indigenous men who feel humiliated by a new culture, economy and world.

So what can we do rhetorically and policy wise to win more young men over ?

  • dukeofdummies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 days ago

    What you’ve described is every complaint I’ve had with centrists and neocons in the democratic party. I don’t really know where the progressive part comes in.

    Bernie did amazing with men to the point where “bernie bros” were being mocked in media, so has Mamdani in NY in polls.

    If anything, I would argue that the Democratic party should be more populist and progressive. Focusing on things that pull up everybody, because everyone is struggling right now.

  • percent@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    I don’t have any big answers, but just a small piece of advice: Don’t shame people for asking questions when they just want to learn.

    I would think that’s the perfect opportunity to educate someone, but so many people will just down-vote a naive question and move on without explanation, which is even more confusing.

    I’m speaking from my own experience. I still tend to be neutral on a lot of things so far, but my brain is kinda… unusual. I think most people might gradually feel pushed away, “othered”, etc. and eventually lean in the opposite political direction than you might want.

    TL;DR: If you want people on your side, stop pushing them away. And maybe ask others on your side to stop too.

  • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    9 days ago

    Look at what men are missing and how the right is selling it to them.

    Men aren’t doing so hot right now, emotionally and mentally. They feel like they are not manly, and criticized for trying to be manly or liking manly things. There’s a lack of transitions into manhood, and the bar that is seen as a successful man with a good career is pretty much impossible.

    If you have a poor paying job, you’re not manly. If you have a well paying job but it’s blue collar you’re not manly because you’re a dumb working stiff. If you have a white collar job you’re not manly because you’re not doing anything tough with your body. Maybe if you’re a CEO who owns the company but also does rock climbing and bear fighting are you seen as manly enough, maybe.

    Then you have these guys, your Andrew Tates and so on, who act very manly and tell you it’s ok to be a man and then spout off some of the most toxic, asinine shit saying that’s how you be a man. And young guys fall for it because they aren’t shown any alternative.

    Then on the left you have people who speak ill of men as a whole, and manliness as a whole. Sometimes the criticisms are correct, but a lot of times it’s presented as men overall. If you try to say that it’s not every man out there who’s a monster, you get blasted with criticism for saying “not all men”. They also don’t provide anything positive or solutions for feeling manly, with the best they can be offered is to be more like women.

    So young men, especially young cishet men, are actively pushed away from leftist spaces, leaving them feeling demonized by those spaces, and actively pandered to by the right which are offering mind poison dressed up as solutions.

    So what do we do? There’s a few things to fix.

    1. leftist media has to stop demonizing men and start demonizing actions. Instead of saying “men are rapists” start saying “rapists are bad”. When people start to say things like “cis people are shit” other people need to call them out of it, because if you’re supposed to be the side that accepts people’s gender identity, it should be for all gender identities. It can feel cathartic to rail against the majority demographic, especially when people of that demographic have hurt you, but if you feel that it’s unfair to rail against a group because of the actions of a few members of it, that should apply to all groups. Things like “what’s wrong with the straights” doesn’t help build bonds with allies, and it turns young men away from leftist spaces.

    2. there needs to be validation and recognition from the left for problems men have, like suicide, workplace death and heavier prison sentencing. The left needs to show that they are trying to fix these problems, too, instead of telling young men to suck it up and be a man about it because they are the oppressor demographic.

    3. there needs to be people who counter toxic masculinity, not with telling men to be more like women, but with positive masculinity. If a man is having emotional or mental problems, toxic masculinity says to push that down. Femininity says it’s ok to be soft and vulnerable. Positive masculinity would say that a real man is true to himself and his feelings and expresses then freely, even if others might ridicule him for it. There’s a subtle difference, and the end result of femininity’s and positive masculinity’s tactic might be the same, i.e. the man expresses those feelings, but the way that they get there is very different. The former makes the man feel less validated in his identity, while the latter uplifts it. The memes where they say stuff like “I always tell my homies I love them before they go to bed” actually work.

    4. leftist influencers need to make fighting for the rights of minorities seem manly. Badass. Like a hero. Worthy of praise and celebration.

    5. while they won’t get the financial and political backing that the toxic male influencers get, there needs to be positive male influencers who talk about masculinity in a positive way, while promoting the ideas above. There needs to be an alternative, who acts manly but in the fun, positive way, that validates young men’s feelings of inadequacy, frustration, and isolation, while promoting an egalitarian perspective.

    6. there needs to be a cultural shift in what makes a man. A shift away from dying in battle or becoming a tyremoved, and a resurgence of the working class hero. Mass media itself needs to change and promote positive male figures. It can work and be popular, like in Avatar the Last Airbender. We need to show men that they are still men, and still worthy of love, respect and adoration, even if they aren’t a super soldier or a wealthy elite. A lot of this is counter to capitalistic goals, so it may have to be subversive, but eventually it needs to be made the norm.

    7. other men need to continue to step up and speak out about injustice towards minorities and against toxic masculinity behaviors in the day to day, and start decrying those behaviors as unmanly. People need to call Andrew Tate and the like unmanly.

    8. ideally, the men’s rights movement should be absorbed by the left and the toxic incels kicked out. It should be done in the name of gender equality. Fixing only woman’s problems won’t solve the patriarchy (which could be changed to a different term so everyone feels like it’s less of an us vs them) and feminists should try to help solve men’s problems directly rather than indirectly. Young men would see feminism as more appealing if feminists actually focused on men’s problems as well, rather than ignoring or worse, demonizing them. Feminism could be rebranded as an egalitarian movement for all sexes and genders, maybe get a name change. If the patriarchy affects everyone, then the focus should be on everyone. Maybe it would have to be a whole new movement entirely.

    So it’s a larger problem than just getting more leftist male influencers, and some of those problems are systematic. Some can get worked on today. Talking about masculinity in a positive way, promotive equity, stop both their side and your side from bigotry, and, probably the thing that would get young men on board the most:

    Actually trying to solve the problems young men are going through.

    • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      W-Wait, what is this? A well-thought out, constructive, sympathetic comment? Here? I don’t believe it!

      Real talk, though: This is an incredibly solid post and I really appreciate you taking the time to actually write all of these points out. It’s rare (or, subjectively, it feels rare) to see an admission that a major shift in how this topic is approached is needed, and I feel just a bit more hopeful seeing someone else put in the time to go this deep on it.

      I would only make two add-on comments to your points:

      • With regard to point #6, I agree with the concept - but we have to be careful of how we phrase this. Unless it comes with a major effort to utterly restructure our economy in such a way that either a man’s value is no longer measured in his ability to be successful in a paid position, and/or we restructure our economy to make success more viable, I fear that efforts to support “working class heros” are doomed to become awkward failures as automation continues to steamroll the viability of those positions.

      • One point I don’t see brought up here, though it is touched at in (1) and (8), is that we’ve got to modulate how we discuss so-called “toxic” behavior. When so many seemingly minor behaviors are met with the same levels of disdain, villainization, and even punishment as things like actual sexual assault, it ends up feeling deeply isolating, undermines the point that is trying to be made, and pushes men towards the worst actors.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        Thanks, I’m glad you liked it!

        I kinda agree on your points. I feel that working class heros could make a comeback if done well, though.

        Hell ideally I’d like to see more historical stuff based on labor history, Blair Mountain was crazy and could totally be an action movie.

      • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        For #6, I don’t think we necessarily have to move away from the idea that being a man means being a provider and a protector. At least to me those are some of the core tenants of being a man.

        The person above you mentioned the men in Avatar the last Airbender. But I also want to add in the men in LOTR, Gomez Adams, Ted Lasso, Kratos in the newer god of war games, and Steve Rodgers.

        These are men who are caring, loving, emotional and they are (mostly) able to show those emotions, capable of growth, and able to admit when they are wrong. But they are still men. Men who struggle with anger, men go to war and protect their families, men who are incredibly strong in the face of struggle, men who sometimes make “inappropriate” (to the left) jokes, and men who strive for nothing else but bettering the lives of those in their care.

        I sometimes hate that what counts as “positive masculinity” is really just feminity but dressed up in a blue bow. Men are not women and telling them that they can’t be super competitive, can’t be angry, and can’t fail is just setting them up to fall into toxic masculinity. This might just be me talking about the culture I was raised in but those things aren’t necessarily a bad thing, and erasing what a “man” has been for generations isn’t going to win you any extra fans.

        • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Sorry, I think maybe my point was misunderstood. Trust me, I’m in full agreement with you: Like the comment I was responding to was saying, trying to simply frame “positive” masculinity in terms of feminine traits doesn’t seem like a good idea. There needs to be a positive reference for actually masculine role models and ideals.

          Like, literally everything you said is something I totally agree with.

          My concern is that, specifically, initiatives which idealize working-class providers and fail to recognize the way automation and computerization have significantly flattened the jobs market (especially well-paying, working-class jobs), are intrinsically doomed because we don’t have an economy which widely supports men acting as supporters for a family. If we idealize a working provider but simultaneously leave things in a state where a man can’t provide for his family, what I fear we’re actually left with is swaths of men feeling unfulfilled and angry at those in charge for bringing them to this point.

    • meyotch@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 days ago

      Thank you for taking the time to write that. That was very well thought out and I really can’t see much or anything to quibble about.

      I am a gay man raised in a conservative culture and I really know quite a lot of men in their 30s and 40s who are straight and accepting of me, but still deeply deeply troubled and confused about what it means to be a man. They struggle to identify and articulate their emotions quite a lot.

      The fact that those in same-sex relationships have to invent their own ways of dividing the work in a partnership without reference to pre-defined gender roles makes their insight incredibly useful to the world at large. A lot of the struggles that men experience are due to rigid gender roles that do not allow for healthy expression.

      I get a little bit angry because it’s like we were expected to accept that provisional approval from the Supreme Court, which as we all know is a very fragile victory.

      Why? Because frankly, I think gay men and lesbians have a lot to teach about relationships just by existing visibly. Transgender people do too, but they do not yet enjoy the patchy and tentative acceptance that same sex relationships between cis people have achieved in the large parts of the USA. Their struggle is very intense right now and the LGBQs can help by getting loud again.

      Why did we give up on the fight so early? The struggle for existence is not quite as dire for gay and lesbian people as it used to be, but it is still quite a struggle as nothing is assured. But it is not just for our benefit that we must be visible. Frankly, our experience gives us a great deal of wisdom and insight that our society, and men especially, desperately need.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        l feel that the acceptance of LGBT people has actually had a beneficial effect on cishet men in ways most people aren’t aware of.

        Dating is a good example. Traditionally the guy asks the girl out and pays for everything. This system sucks. It means men feel desperate and have to prove their worth (financial and otherwise) feeling lonely and worthless and women are stuck with the constant stream of guys trying to hit on them, dealing with harassment and worse.

        But with more acceptance of homosexual relationships, that traditional method of dating doesn’t apply. The old “but who’s the guy” confusion goes away, and people as a whole realize that it’s stupid. If you see a post about a woman insisting a guy pays for everything or a guy insisting on ordering for his date they seem old fashioned and weirdly demanding. Most people wouldn’t bat an eye about a girl asking a guy out on a date now, and I’ll bet there’s some old newspaper headlines about some lady doing that in the past.

        By your nature you’re helping to break down these dysfunctional systems and it’s actually helping people, so thanks a lot for that!

      • 0xD@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        Wrong. Feminism is anti-patriarchy, for everyone. Educate yourself, read a little.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 days ago

          Being anti-patriarchy is an inherently anti-male stance. A feminist walks up to a man and says “We’re trying to erode your influence on society, isn’t that great?” Yeah, and what the natives need is Christianity.

          They’ll try to lie and market “The Patriarchy” as whatever they think they can get away with at the moment with the audience they’ve cornered, pretend like defeating “The Patriarchy” should be the goal of whoever they’re talking to as well. It shouldn’t.

          Feminism started out as things like the suffragettes, wanting the right to vote in elections. Fair enough. “We want to be equal to men!” Uh huh…so here in 2025 what right or privilege do I enjoy under the law that a woman doesn’t?

          I will also assert this: No feminist will be caught dead genuinely helping a man. A feminist is more likely to burn down a men’s shelter than build one.

          • 0xD@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 days ago

            God damn, what a load of incel bullshit you’re spewing. You’re exactly the problem and the reason why women would rather spend time with a bear than another self-absorbed manlet.

            Patriarchy affects everyone badly, not just women. But I won’t be wasting time, you can learn about everything if you just put in a little effort. You seem to be choosing egoistical ignorance.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 days ago

          Feminism started as a way to fight for the rights of women. That’s not anti-male, but it’s also not “for everyone”.

          • 0xD@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 days ago

            Of course the focus is on women and generally LGBTQ+ people, as they are oppressed groups.

            In its wider sense though, especially with the focus on intersectionality, it is for a fairer and juster world for everyone as the systems of oppression affect us all in various capacities.

            • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              I don’t know if I would categorize that as feminism though. Egalitarianism maybe? “Social justice” in the non-derogatory sense?

              • 0xD@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 days ago

                Feminism is just a collective name for various ideologies with the aim of social justice for all genders/sexes. Within you will find many different movements with various qualities. In general, it’s about creating societal/governmental systems that afford the same quality of life and opportunities for everyone, regardless of gender, race or sexuality.

                You could see it as a subcategory of egalitarianism, which in general has the goal of social justice.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

                In the end, of course not every movement is perfect, people are fallible after all. But that doesn’t only concern feminists even if they are one of the main targets of the manufactured right-wing culture war. And furthermore, some people going too far/not being nuanced enough/not going far enough is not a reason to disregard the movement and its wider aims in a fight for a better world for all.

                • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  I’m not disregarding the movement; I’m saying the definition is trying to be too many things at once. If the narrow definition (traditional feminism for women’s rights and needs) and the wide definition (general gender issues) are too far apart, they begin to disagree. People both inside and outside of the movement are using the term in the narrower definition, and it doesn’t make sense IMO to continue to try to force the wider one when we could just pick a term that’s more accurate and go with that.

                  As an example of how this difference in definitions could be an issue, let’s say that I’m a man and I want to fight for some particular men’s rights issue. I would not feel comfortable taking my sign about trial verdict imbalance or male suicide rates to a feminist rally, because it only fits the broader definition. Anyone there who is fighting for feminism in the narrower definition would not appreciate me and my cause cause in what they perceive as a space to fight for women’s issues only. But in the broader definition, that sign would be fine, and others would welcome me. The people using either definition aren’t wrong, but the uncertainty created by having two valid definitions creates an atmosphere where it is more comfortable to fight for women’s rights than men’s rights.

                  Therefore, I think it would be smart to be able to specify, using the movement’s name, if an event is about women’s rights or gender equality in general. It can’t be both ways; to me, the inevitable result of the uncertain definition-- a gender equality movement where it is more accepted to fight for the rights of one gender-- is clearly worse than the alternative scenario where the terms are more clear.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        I don’t think that’s inherently true for all feminism, though there’s definitely been some bad actors. Actresses.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      You hit the nail on the head AND provided clear action items. Excellent post.

      I do think that it would be difficult to rebrand “feminism” and “patriarchy” because the terms are inherently gendered and are sometimes still being used for gendered purposes. We should definitely find new terms and be more accurate about the egalitarian movement being a new movement, or a rebrand of the more general parts of feminism, rather than trying to reuse the old movement’s terms when it doesn’t make sense.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      This is a great solution but it has two big problems that make it functionally impossible.

      1. To the left there is no non-toxic or positive masculinity.
      2. Feminism doesn’t actually support men, it’s a reluctant talking point. It only helps men if it happens to coincide with benefiting women.
      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        Depends on what part of the left you’re talking about, but yeah, these are things which have to change in order for it to work well.

    • rational_lib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      I get that this is upvoted a lot due to being constructive but it also reflects a lot of Republican media tropes about the left that aren’t really true - and that’s why trying to “fix” these things won’t work - because it misses the real problem.

      Examples: No significant figure on the left is saying “men are rapists”, or telling men to be more like women, etc. Reducing suicide, safer workplaces, and reducing excessive prison sentences are all priorities for the left and not for the right.

      I think the real problem is quite simple: Republicans have invested heavily in portraying themselves as the “masculine party”, and in driving the narratives I’ve mentioned. And because Republican leaders like the Murdochs and Elon tend to be men, they’re best at driving those narratives.

      Which goes to the real underlying problem with the left as a whole - no ability to drive or counter a media narrative. The right has Fox news and Elon’s control over Twitter, which they can and do regularly use to create whatever narrative they want. Notice how for example they just made white south African farmer killings a topic all of a sudden. The left has a bunch of corporate media whose top priority is selling truck ads. Sure, maybe the reporters themselves are left leaning, but they have no top down guidance as to what narratives to build.

      And until the left creates some sort of media capability to create and control narratives, the right will always have a leg up. And because of that, none of the well intentioned ideas here will actually work. If the left tries to appeal to men, the right will decide how those appeals will be interpreted.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        I agree with you for the most part, but there is a thread you missed.

        While there might not be a significant leftist media personality which says misandrist things, there are a lot of smaller people who do. There’s an air of “men are not welcome here, specifically cishet men” in lefty spaces. And people who try to speak out against it tend to be ousted. (Case study Erin Pizzey) There wouldn’t be a demand for “male tears” mugs out there if there wasn’t a demand for them.

        Whether you think this behavior is acceptable or not, it doesn’t make the left seem appealing to young men, especially because it’s not called out by people.

        But yeah, the top down media? A huge machine that’s a problem. The left will have a hard time replicating it, especially because when you live in hyper capitalism, it’s not really in the benefit of capitalists to try to fix it.

    • Mac@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      All these things already exist and maybe just need more exposure.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        Most things already exist. What we need is for this to become the dominant understanding/goals of the left.

  • Beacon@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    9 days ago
    1. Stop dismissing that men have problems which require addressing

    A lot of people say things like “men have it the best, they don’t need help!” That’s nonsense. Everyone who is dealing with problems and is suffering needs help. Helping men doesn’t mean you stop helping women, we should help everyone who needs help.

    1. Stop purity tests and infighting

    Progressives today are truly awful when it comes to this. I’m not talking about including nazis, I’m talking about attacking people who agree with you on 90% of topics. Like if someone thinks trans people should be totally treated as the gender they express in every facet of society, except they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s physical sports competitions.

    1. Messaging needs HUGE improvement

    This is another one that progressives have a terrible problem with. They do a terrible job of letting people know how they’re being helped, and they also use language that gives the impression that they’re against you. For example “the patriarchy” is a terrible term that makes men feel attacked, even though that’s not what it’s about at all. What most people actually mean to refer to is “gender norms”, meaning concepts like ‘men should fuck a lot of women and not express their emotions’. “Gender norms” is a much more accurate term and it doesn’t make men feel like they’re being attacked.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        That’s probably the right strategy. I think there is room for academic discussion of how trans sports should be handled, but we spend too much time talking about that and aren’t saying enough of importance for me to believe that the discussion is currently effective.

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I get what you’re saying, but every rights movement has worked the opposite way. It’s not about giving up ground, it’s about picking one battle at a time. Gay people fought to be not killed, then fought to be accepted, then fought to be able to marry. It wasn’t a single “equality” battle, it was a series of battles in a longer war. They didn’t slide back immediately when they couldn’t get married, they fought the next fight.

        Some people really suck, but for a lot I think it’s more misunderstanding or reluctance to let things change. There’s many reasons. Labeling everyone who doesn’t get on board with every facet of what you want means you’re reducing your allies. And those people who are comfortable with one thing but uncomfortable with another may become more comfortable when they see that the first thing doesn’t lead to the collapse of society.

          • psivchaz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            I think I misunderstood what you were originally saying and we’re more or less on the same side. My point was that it’s not about saying “okay we’ll stop caring about this” but about saying “this isn’t the thing we need to be focusing attention on right now.” I worded it very poorly.

  • cook_pass_babtridge@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    8 days ago

    Talk about issues that affect the working class. Not the white working class, not working class men, just everyone who makes a living by drawing a wage. Progressive movements are formed by solidarity, and we have more in common with other working class people than any of the politicians or business leaders who set the tone of this debate.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    9 days ago

    Start by no longer telling men who have done nothing wrong they are responsible for the misdeeds of others. It breeds resentment and closes people to anything else you have to say.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 days ago

      Rich old dudes fuck every everyone over…

      21 years old kid gets the blame…

      US “liberals” are a useful tools of the regime who are too smug to figure out that they are part of the problem

      • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        They have become the coastal educated elite through the years and it’s hard for them to accept it doesn’t resonate with the wider population

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      This comes up a lot, and I really don’t know where it comes from. Who is telling you that you’re responsible for the misdeeds of others? Seriously, point that out, because I’m in my mid forties, I’m a white cishet American man, and I’ve never felt like I was being blamed for the sins of people who look and fuck like me. Really, it just sounds like a conservative strawman talking point, because nobody does this.

        • Mora@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 days ago

          Okay, but that men are privileged is a fact. Do all men do well because of that? No. But we need to work with the facts, so we can better the system for everyone.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Bullshit. I am privileged in many ways. It isn’t an insult to acknowledge that I don’t and haven’t faced the same challenges as other people. I can recognize that society hasn’t been fair to others without ignoring the obstacles and challenges I’ve faced.

          Are you saying we’re not privileged?

          Edit: I’ve been thinking about your comment, and I wonder if you don’t understand what privilege is.

          Imagine you’re at a restaurant. You sit, you’re eating your meal, and someone at the next table asks to borrow the salt. You have salt on your table, and for whatever reason, they don’t have salt on their table.

          So you stand up and shout “No! It’s not my fault the restaurant doesn’t provide salt to every table! It’s not my responsibility to make sure everyone has access to salt! I don’t owe this table or any table any other table my salt that I am owed. The salt is on my table because I earned it. And besides, I have no pepper and my steak was overcooked and my chair is wobbly. Fuck you for even suggesting I share my salt.”

          None of that bullshit is relevant. You have the salt and someone is asking you to share because you can. They aren’t blaming you for the lack of salt. They aren’t saying you’re responsible to make sure everyone has salt. They aren’t saying that, because you have salt, you don’t have other needs or problems, or that you aren’t entitled to use the salt while you have it. The privilege is that you have access to salt while others don’t. You don’t always need it, so it costs you nothing to share. Having it won’t solve all of your problems, and sharing it should not cause you significant problems. And someone pointing out that the whole restaurant should have salt on each table is not a personal attack on you.

          You’re not the asshole until you refuse to pass the salt.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          I don’t think this is accurate. Male privilege is not the same issue as the whole “all men do X” vs “not all men” thing

  • AnalogNotDigital@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 days ago

    Man it’s like the majority of people here don’t have ‘regular guy’ friends.

    The way to get to regular dudes, is to make them feel fucking included. Yes, diversity is fucking awesome. Yes, having women in leadership roles is fucking awesome. But for your average guy… who do they have to look up to on the left side of things? In the news? In congress? Who is on the national stage for these things? Who is talking to those people?

    There isn’t anyone. There are tons of people talking to other groups of people, but there has been flat out no courting of the white dude demographic outside of White Dudes for Harris (which was brilliant but came too late).

    Speak to the issues these guys are facing. Talk about dating. Talk about career struggles. Talk about feeling alone, and feeling vulnerable. And then, talk about solution based problem-solving for these things.

    Why do you think the right wing latched onto guys who do the whole personal betterment thing? It’s the same shit that white supremacist groups do. They’ll get you with things that anyone can agree with like ‘Hey man if you work hard you’ll succeed. I fucking believe in you when no one else will.’ Then they go into the right wing bullshit because now they have you at an emotional level.

    There is no online left presence doing these things, and there are multiple right wing people doing this shit.

    Make a left wing Joe Rogan, and bro-dudes will watch that shit like shit on velcro. But it has to be a dude-bro talking to them. It can’t be Rachel Maddow or AOC, it has to be someone who comes from that background.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    9 days ago

    Be nice and respectful to them and masculinity. Like “It’s masculine to protect the oppressed”

    Don’t belittle anyone for that matter, such as based on race, gender or religions, even if you’re upset at that grouping.

    • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think you can refocus the modern aggressive threatening behaviour of young men into either a physical or psychological aspect of masculinity that celebrates being respected and admired for the safety projected by them. A ‘real man’ is someone who makes sure everyone is heard, everyone is safe, everyone can rely upon, and that no one can get away with shit around. They should be beacons of safety, strength of character, and patience. I believe our ancestors gained this by survival, team bonding through necessity and respect for the danger of nature. Humility needs to come back in a big way.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        Exactly. Men want to feel important as well. I think taking away masculinity has led us to this dangerous place.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      That, or if they insist on being agressive shits, enlighten them to the time honored tradition of punching nazis.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        My great grandfather shot nazis for King and Country 😎🇬🇧

  • disconsented@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    9 days ago

    The reality of this all is rather complex but I think the greatest issue is fundamentally the empathy gap. Men’s issues are not recognized as issues, they’re just dismissed out of hand. I’m talking about the easy things like the sentencing and education gaps.

    We need to start the discourse that these are very real problems that are worth addressing.

    Another problem I personally run into is how it’s acceptable to discriminate against men, “kill all men” is acceptable but “kill all race” isn’t. Neither should be and we don’t recognize it as a problem, instead defaulting to arguments that are considered horrendous in another context.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 days ago

      Every time I have heard someone say “kill all men” I have immediately dismissed everything else they are saying because their logic is just as rotten as other racists/sexists

    • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      If they wanted to address the education gap, wouldn’t they? Why would they want to when trades provide more money, no lost income for 4-5 years, or a crippling debt? Women are at a disadvantage there. I mean, I definitely don’t want to minimize overlooked hardships, but…

      • disconsented@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        8 days ago

        You’re paying with your body, the work can be very dangerous, and it takes a while to ramp up to decent pay. On top of that the pay isn’t always going to be better than a degree (iirc research has concluded that lifetime earnings for trades are behind degrees), ignoring countries with sensible tertiary education options.

        Trades are not equivalent. And education is still a significant indicator of political alignment.

        Honestly, this is a great example of the empathy gap.

        • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          What research? There are lots of folks with crippling debts. I know tons of people who will never be rid of their’s. As an engineer, I have never known job security. Who wamts to worry about losing their job every day? But I notice plenty of guys making a lot more than me since trades have a serious shortage of workers. Electricians around here charge whatever they want because there is not enough of them. Hospitals around here are bought up by one entity, so nurses can’t quit and make more money elsewhere. Teachers are quitting in droves such that it’s become a national crisis. But then there are plumbers making 6 figures.

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    8 days ago

    I don’t follow the media and the debate where you live, but over here left leaning politicians and media tends to frame it as: women, minorites etc have a problem. Men are the problem.

    You’re basically pushing any undecided man over to the right.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Liberal politicians do it because it’s been pushed by the left. It’s how they keep leftists voting more centrally. They take left wing ideas, then water them down enough to appeal for centrist voters. Centrists find common sense ideas appealing, while those on the left get a dog whistle.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            combined with refusal to have real life human contact with women,

            It’s quite possible it’s the other way around on that one. I’ve certainly had periods of my life where I had to branch out pretty far in my social circle to meet women because the things I enjoyed doing are either solo activities or of little interest to women (at least around here). Some of that has gotten better in the last decade or so as nerdy shit has become more socially acceptable and ive built up a more diverse social network for myself but it was a rocky start and if I didn’t get lucky with the people I had around me it could have turned out much worse.

    • Luffy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      So we should lie?

      Men are the problem. The patriarchy, the racism, the discrimination? Men.

      And if you are too braindead to understand this, you’re too far gone anyway.

      • Impassionata@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I have more respect for open misandry than you might expect, but if your emotions are preventing you from crafting worthwhile politics, remove yourself from the situation.

        The calm, reasonable people are talking, and histrionic performance like this is a step away from panicking.

        Your trauma response may be valid, but that does not mean it is productive.

        Yes, I am telling you to calm the fuck down.

        • Luffy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’m not payed, I just don’t see a reality where we can improve the world and not mention the hundreds of years of oppression by men at the same time, which, as you already said, will drive away the republicans. So you really gotta start thinking „should we ignore the obvious problem why woman are to this day fighting for human rights so we can find a compromise with Nazis?” and my answer is obviously no.

          • zxqwas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            8 days ago

            You should be paid because you’re basically campaigning for the republicans.You don’t drive away any core republican voter, they would never vote D. You drive away the ones who voted democrat last election.

          • blarghly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 days ago

            You’re making an excellent point here. I’ll bring it up at the next Council of Men that we should stop oppressing women. Good thing we figured that out - top notch work!

      • yarr@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 days ago

        You can’t have a post like this and then wonder “Why do so many men go to the right?”

        Maybe men are sick of being painted with a broad brush. We all have our own thoughts, beliefs and feelings.

          • yarr@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 days ago

            Let me clarify: I am not advocating to join the right. I am furnishing an explanation why SOME men join the right. Like I said in my earlier post, it’s very sickening to be painted with such a broad brush. Some of us are moralistic and considerate and it’s annoying to just be treated as a monolithic entity. “You are a man, therefore you are evil” reeks of original sin. I prefer to be judged by my own deeds instead of the deeds of those I share a gender with.

      • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 days ago

        Men are the problem. The patriarchy, the racism, the discrimination? Men.

        Ultra rich men are the problem. We’re losing a class war.

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Easy

    Every time there is a conversation regarding men issues, dismiss them as talking about something that clearly DOESN’T EXISTS, demean them, if they are emotionally intelligent enough to defend themselves from the TOTALLY NOT aggressive rhetoric, compare them to something else, preferably, something weaker and less smart than them, bonus points if you attack their sexuality in the same phrase, that always gets them riled up to support you!

    Even more so if you treat them like complete imbeciles with a memory span of seconds and assume they forgot about all the years you have been doing this exact same thing!

    And whatever you do, don’t forget to bring up how women have and keep having BIGGER issues

    That’ll work wonders

    • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 days ago

      I genuinely believe that more empathy is needed in both directions for people to come out of their trenches. Problem is, it"s hard to feel empathy for those who have no empathy in return. It’s a locked position reinforcing itself with every bad interaction. To break out of this we would have to listen and show that we care, while not getting the same things back. It feels bad. Unfair. Again, this goes both ways.

  • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    This is all from the perspective of a non-american from a country where thankfully we are still liberal at heart and only entertain some progressive ideas, instead of buying it wholesale, meaning the right has yet to completely cannibalise the government over the mistakes of the left.

    1. Move away from equity and return to equality of opportunity as the main goal. Equity demands lack of competition, and men love competition.

    You can want everyone to receive equal opportunity and dignity, but people are not equal and will not end in the same place once the race is over. You can’t demand equality of outcome and onboard the most competitive demographic, there is a reason if the stereotype of leftist men is passive wimps. This is completely compatible with prgressive ideas, but it’s incompatible with progressive brains, apparently.

    1. Actually understand what intersectionality looks like, stop treating it like a hierarchy of oppression.

    The core idea of intersectionality is that each demographic has its own issues and they manifest differently if more demographics overlap in the same individual (e.g. sexism against white women vs sexism against black women exhibit different tropes and connotations).

    This does not mean whoever has the least minoritary traits is the most acceptable target, that is some marxist “oppressor vs oppressed” horseshit and, while it was probably the intended idea, it is massively counterproductive and doesn’t have to be the actual application of the issue.

    Men have issues that women don’t have, women have issues that men don’t have. As soon as your movement decides to prioritise one they have lost the other.

    The reason this does not happen with race is that no movement in the US can realistically exist politically without white people simply by virtue of how huge the white slice of the demo pie is, and because this whole thing was started by highly educated, economically mobile, overwhelingly white, college grads who live in very specific coastal bubbles, hence the endemic hatred of farmers and factory workers, the actual working class of the US, as hicks and racists, and the lionisation of serving staff like baristas and waiters (the only working class most large city dwellers ever interact with).

    1. Move away from “patriarchy”.

    It’s just a fucking L on its face isn’t it? “Yes come join the party that thinks men being in power is the problem” fat fucking chance lol.

    And when they do join, the parodies write themselves.

    I don’t care if you think it’s “just a name” (especially in light of what progs consistently do over “just a name” and “just a statue” and so on) it’s a massive optics L that shows all of the horseshit about microaggressions and non-confrontational language and whatnot are entirely performative.

    You have the most obvious othering language in the core ideas of the movement and then complain about microaggressions? And you wonder why people don’t take you seriously?

    And while we’re on that:

    1. Politeness is baseline, respect is earned. Confrontation is necessary and men are more likely to thrive in confrontational spaces.

    You can’t have a political movement that does not tolerate dissent and confrontation, or only tolerates it in one direction. See the implosion of the “Unfuck america tour” as a good example of this.

    The whole point of politics is to create a critical mass of people who align on some goal to push for it, you don’t have to agree with them on every point, if you had enough people who agree with you, you would be already in the majority and would not need to participate in politics.

    Easy example from the last decade: TERFs.

    Now, I don’t like TERFs, on account of them being radfems and thus automatically hostile to me due to the circumstances of my birth (i.e. penis), but you know what? I reckon they probably want women to have better salaries and fewer barriers to entry into professional fields.

    Let them force themselves into political irrelevance if they refuse to play ball, don’t make a big fucking show of kicking them out of the movement, because then you end up on the back foot of having to explain “trans women are women” to the mass population and the TERFs simply need to say “look at these brainwashed biology deniers, they think males and females have no differences” and you end up eating your own ass in public, when the point is that trans women ought to be treated as women for their own good and a more welcoming society.

    (side note: if you are in that brainless chunk of progs who do believe there is no difference between the sexes, I highly encourage you to look at the world records in any discipline with easily measured metrics such as 100m dash and freestyle swimming. Not a single male record is under the women’s record, in some cases every historical male record eclipses the current female one. Males and females are different, this should be acknowledged, and it should not be a barrier to equal dignity in treatment.)

    A movement that can’t include anyone but the most in-line and pure of the ideological adepts is doomed to be irrelevant, and on that the progressives have an almost complete lock.

      • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 days ago

        I have a bit of a preconceived notion as to why you are saying this, however I would rather ask you to be more specific before jumping to conclusions. Can you give concrete examples as to how my suggestions would alienate women?

      • spacecadet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s amazing how well he articulated the problem and pointed out potential solutions just for you to give a perfect example of the type of rhetoric he is talking about that drives people away from the left. Like his link, the parody writes itself…

          • spacecadet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            Generally the most welcoming and comforting places are men’s clubs and groups, so much so, that women have fought legal battles to get into male only spaces like fraternities, gyms, clubs, societies, etc… yet there are no men fighting to get into women’s spaces. Really makes you think… the most toxic workplaces I have been involved in were the jobs I had where women dominated the demographic. There was constant bickering, backstabbing, and gossip that me and the men didn’t want to participate in and certainly couldn’t keep up with. It wasn’t until my desk got moved to a factory floor that was heavily male dominated that people cared and looked out for each other more. This may have been because of the safety culture differences of a factory floor vs an office, but it felt deeper than that. Happy hours were actually happy and not filled with angst, no office drama, I could be more open and honest because my male coworkers wouldn’t get “the ick” if I was having a bad day and actually looked out for me, etc… I think women use the “patriarchy” as this nebulous, abstract thing that they can just place all of their failures and shortcomings as a person on so that way they don’t have to face the truth that deep down they are a disgusting person.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 days ago

        A competitive spirit is not morally wrong and calling men worse human beings for having one is so fundamentally wrong that I can only ask you to reread and reconsider the above post.

      • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 days ago

        They were here before you, just because you disagree with them doesn’t make them not feminists.

        This is a great example of what I meant, btw: progressives act like every protestant denomination, calling eachother “not real christians” not realising they are all the same brand of sanctimonious.

          • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Are you under the impression that the term “TERF” was invented in 2008 because that’s when trans exclusion became a thing?

            Do you seriously think that a movement that over its lifespan at some point didn’t even include non-white women started off including non-female ones?

            “Trans x are x” as a widespread progressive sociological stance is new, I don’t even know if it’s 20 years old, it may be closer to 10, even.

        • Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist and not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology that feminism at its core has been fighting against since it’s inception, just this time aimed at trans women to protect “real women”?

          I’m genuinely curious because all the advocacy I’ve seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and… Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.

          • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist

            The part that is your standard boilerplate second wave feminism, the only difference is how they define “woman,” which simply hasn’t changed in the last 20 odd years to conform to the mainline progressive position.

            They are effectively conservative feminists, which sounds counterintuitive until you realise feminism is old enough to easily fall within the range of things that can have a conservative/progressive split.

            not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology

            You mean like feminism was until the adoption of intersectional sociological lenses by the progressive part of the movement? (and it arguably still is essentialist, just on qualities other than birth sex)

            Cause like, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Julie Bindel, they were feminists before a lot of the feminists of today were alive, and they don’t strike me as trans allies.

            I’m genuinely curious because all the advocacy I’ve seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and… Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.

            You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t feminists, it just means they have different ontological positions that lead them to side with different people.

            Often the enemy you know, especially one that appears (but isn’t, in the case of conservatives) on the backfoot can look positively attractive compared to the new and alien.

            If anything it should tell you how essentialist and misandrist second wave feminism was that they’d draw the line at male women and female men, and not at cis conservatives.


            In brief, my point is: just because it’s not your wave of feminism that you identify with, doesn’t mean your wave doesn’t directly descend from it and that it didn’t pave the way for yours.

            Movements change and evolve, society as a whole was not trans inclusive at all until the late 00s, and even then it was touch and go, and it’s incredibly naïve to think that feminism, of all things, would somehow be morally lucky from its inception in the 1800s and never in ~150 years sided with the mainstream on axes other than pushing for women* to be equal to men* (*provided they are the right demographic on every other axis).

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Harsh to hear but I believe this perspective to be both true and very important to accept/understand (with the exception of the terf topic)

      • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        Keep in mind I’m not saying to accept TERFs, I’m saying to be smart about letting them cut themselves off instead of forcing them out.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Fair. IMO it depends on how much you value being morally correct vs overall effectiveness of the movement. It could be worth it to compromise the integrity slightly if it will be much more effective. Not everyone would make that trade but I’m not here to argue against people who would.

          • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            IMO it depends on how much you value being morally correct vs overall effectiveness of the movement.

            And this entire thought process is why the left gets weaker every round of elections.

            See for instance: Abandon Harris, a movement thought by absolute winners at the brain lottery, who thought that undermining the candidate who didn’t ban middle easterners from entering the US was the smart choice because Biden was “too lenient against Israel.”

            Politics is about seizing and wielding power, morality has nothing to do with it.

            For one, any grifter can pretend to be more morally correct than you or I and once they get in power they will do whatever they want anyway. I would much rather side with someone who disagrees with me on some things but does so in earnest than someone who is suspiciously always somehow more moral and more correct than me or them.

            For two, morality is literally incompatible with politics, because it is downstream from the body politic.

            For instance: It is considered immoral to own slaves, today. It used to be allowed and to the mores of the time, uncontroversial.

            Then enough people who disagreed with that stance pushed to gain power and made it illegal, once that became the status quo for long enough it is now controversial to hold a position that was the default and viceversa.

            Something becomes a matter of morality once it is no longer a matter of politics.

            In practice, you don’t actually need support for all your ideas, you need enough good ideas to get you enough support that you can then push through your less popular pet issues. Even better if the pet issues themselves are popular, that’s when you get explosive successes like Trump getting re-elected by hammering the inflation button (despite anyone who knows anything about econ knowing he would be literally unable to do anything about it).

            As long as people are not actively against your pet issues they’ll re-elect you just fine, that’s how croneyism skates by unnoticed.

            • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Yes, but there is a point at whoch your movement is compromised so much that winning doesn’t matter because the common goals of the movement are no longer desirable. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that-- we’re pretty firmly in “come on guys stop bikeshedding and work together” territory-- but it is important to know that it can swing too far the other way. That’s how we got people saying “violence is bad, you have to hear the nazi out”.

              • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                there is a point at whoch your movement is compromised so much that winning doesn’t matter because the common goals of the movement are no longer desirable.

                That’s why movements should be built around goals and not allegiance/morality.

                “This is the movement to achieve X.”

                “X has been achieved.”

                “Aight, job well done, time to move on.”

                This is what the right does (or tries to, anyway), and they’re eating the left alive, maybe it’s worth taking this very non-partisan strategy from their playbook?

              • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 days ago

                violence is bad, you have to hear the nazi out

                AKA the same provision that protects everyone with an unpopular opinion, yourself included, yes. That’s what liberal democracies do.

                The state has a monopoly on violence, you don’t get to decide who doesn’t get rights, nor do the nazis.

                The US is a bit of an exception obviously, you guys love your political violence (one could say you are built on it) and who am I to stop you, but Europe does not work that way and thank fuck for that, lol.

                So yeah you have to let the nazi speak, that doesn’t mean you can’t talk over them, mock them, goad them into striking first so the cops will crack down on them, etc.

                I’m Italian so I guarantee you I know that it’s a complex landscape to navigate, with actual fascists (the roman salute kind, not the “we’re cops and we will do our job” ““fascists””) in a lot of police strike teams, and in the current government (Thankfully I live abroad, shit’s bad at home right now), I know it’s no picnic to actually maintain a liberal society, but other countries consistently succeed, like France and the Netherlands, or the nordics.

                It takes effort and a lot of education from early on, and that the population appreciates the importance of that education and the values it is supposed to impart.

                Conversely it was “me ne frego” and the widespread apathy towards it that condemned italy to Mussolini’s rule, not civil debate.

                Moreover, allowing and embracing political violence doesn’t work when one side is already chomping at the bit and better at it than your side, but that’s a practical consideration rather than an ethical/moral one.

                Mind you this does not mean “don’t defend yourself” it means “don’t strike first

                Embrace the Roman doctrine: we will never pick up arms first, but if forced to we will only lay them second.

  • Texas_Hangover@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    8 days ago

    Quit trying to make young white men feel guilty for existing. I come from poor white trash. As near as I can tell, my family never benefitted from slavery in any possible way. So fuck you. I dont feel bad about something I didn’t do, no one in my family did, and we aint gonna pay for it.

  • That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 days ago

    Male stereotypes have to be culturally broken first. Men are being taught that showing any emotions other than anger and hate is effeminate. They’re being taught that empathy is weakness, that education is stupidity, that freedom is slavery.

    Everything that makes men human is being stripped away, leaving a husk of burning hate awaiting marching orders. They need to reconnect to humanity.

    • IloveyouMF@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 days ago

      I am going to be honest, I think women need to be a a part of this. We are used to being right in regards to gender conflict because usually we are but one thing I agree with men on is that every woman says they want men to share their feelings more but many women lose respect for a man they see as weak.

      Bell Hooks talks a lot about this so you can go read her.

      • ZERONOVABLOSSOM@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        I do not find that to be the case at all in my circles, it’s usually the guys giving shit to other guys for expressing emotion and the emotionally expressive people (including women) riffing them for back for being assholes. There’s certainly a song and dance to doing this effectively.

        I don’t really think it should be a gendered expectation but rather an everyone expectation. If someone is being vulnerable with you that wouldn’t otherwise, don’t be an asshole. If someone needs to be called out for exhibiting rude behaviour to someone else, do so in the way that works for your circumstances.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 days ago

      Frankly, I was going to say almost the opposite. Conservatives are appealing to young men by decrying the “woke” process of breaking down those stereotypes. It’s a reaction to those “traditional” masculine traits being challenged by a more enlightened society.

      The key is not breaking down those gender norms, but rechanneling that masculine energy and “gender pride” into something healthy and beneficial. We need to reframe the conversation, because when you attack, people instinctively defend. Instead, we should model the new masculinity, one where being tough means being confident enough to stand out or be yourself. Where being a bro means being a friend, not a douchebag. Real men have the strength to admit their faults and ask for help. Real power is punching up, not down, and real bravery is accepting people for who they are.

      Contrast someone like Joe Rogan with Pedro Pascal. Which one is a “Real Man™”? Which one should we celebrate and focus on? Boys need role models, because we don’t know how to handle our hormones at an age when everything is confusing. If you tell them their instincts are wrong, they will retreat to a safe space where someone else will tell them that society is wrong and they should be as gross and misogynistic as they can be.

      Real men are creative. Real men are kind. Real men are curious. Real men are sincere. Real men admit mistakes and accept consequences. Real men lift others up. Real men are able to ask for help. Real men are comfortable with their sexuality, and are not afraid of exploring their preferences.

      All children are born selfish and frightened. We have to learn to be better through empathy. Without positive role models, we cannot learn to overcome those selfish impulses, and we cannot stand up to the bullies that will try to sell the red pill.

      Because no matter what we do, there will always be conservative dipshits talking about how oppressed they are because they can’t insult people by calling them “girly” or “gay” or “removeded” anymore. There will always be angry gym rats who think big biceps and a fast car will fix their insecurities. There will always be bullies, and we should always stand up to them.

      Also, every boy should watch Ted Lasso. Seriously, there has never been a better breakdown of male stereotypes than that show.

    • Pistcow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 days ago

      40 something male that has struggled to overcome toxic masculinity. I mean I was literally slapped silly by my parents and grandparents for crying when I was 5 and told “boys dont cry”. I mean I’ve cried 3 times in my life before coming to terms with needing to change. Eventalking to my wife it’s taken years for her to accept that Im allowed to feel more emotions than anger and laughter.

      Im a foster parent now and it’s been a lot of work to internalize my stuff but damn im supportive if the boys we have want to feel their feelings. 3 year old wanted a rainbow shirt and I got it for him but his dickehad machismo father called him a removed. Oh boy I made sure he wore his favorite shirt for every visit.