If you want me to point to a big (but not sole) cause then it’s in the lack of male role models available to boys, as well as those who are available having to tip-toe around the issue. Like, try being a male teacher in a female-dominated educational environment and argue that the boys need to roughhouse: Instead of learning, under supervision, how to do so safely and without causing interpersonal conflict down the line, to learn to control their energy, there’s, in my perception, this desire from lived feminism to “train the shopping cart race energy out of boys”. Which won’t ever work, what you instead get is pent-up energy without any skill in directing it in productive ways.
Said grifters take the boys’ indignation about being bereft of that aspect of their development, and that energy, and fuck them up even more. It’s literally that simple.
The issue is not elevating girls, the issue isn’t even not investing energy into the boys, the issue is spending all that energy on having them sit still in class until their bored brains ooze out of their ears… and even if they manage to do that you get statistics like boys needing to be significantly better in class to get equal grades. And then educators complain about lack of respect. The issue is the energy investment causing the problem because, and now I am going to blame women: Feminism at large doesn’t get men. Never has. Never was willing to listen. To be edgy: The best it gets is academic Karens psycho-analysing their own animus and thinking it’s actual men. That combined with educational systems being female-dominated and engaging in toxic masculinity in the “men can’t raise children their input isn’t even necessary when it comes to boys women understand better” gets you a system which fails the boys, allowing characters like Tate to succeed.
(I’ll leave the issue that that kind of attitude is officially called toxic masculinity to another rant, feminism has a terminology problem).
What confuses me is that you read a comment chain where a man told a woman that the reason that men are suffering is that women have too many resources, which I rebutted. And that made you want to argue with ME.
Why let the sexism slide from your fellow man but try to police my response to it?
The thing I was policing was the “but what about women on the other side of the Atlantic” attitude, as well as specifically blaming clueless erm Halbstarke1 for the system that made them that way.
Rebutting undercomplex analysis like that doesn’t exactly help the issue, displacing rightful anger about US politics onto the backs of failed youth. Supreme Court justices are old enough to know better, Tate fans on average barely have pubes.
1 German for “half-strong” for (immature) post-puberty boys to up to early 20s or so, in the sense of “yep they have physical strength, but no strength of wisdom or, for that matter, knowing WTF they’re doing”. “Yob” captures some of the meaning, but it’s very very approximate.
So you are arguing for me to show empathy to young men, as Im being blamed for their problems, and the commentor is advocating that resources be taken from me?
seems you expect quite a lot of empathy and understanding from me and none from the other commentor, or young men.
Ok let me just point out the other side of the perspective coin, here. Quoth that same post:
And you get hammered by the media “women support here, women support there” and if any young teen dares to ask “well what about us boys?” They just get shushed, that it’s not their place, male privilege etc.
…which is exactly what you did: Shushing him for complaining about getting shushed. Probably not even aware of the extent of the power you wield with that. I didn’t really read that comment as “we should take resources away from women” much less “abortion should be outlawed” but explaining how those boys perceive things. Would you disagree with the statement “We should avoid the perception that more is being done for one sex than for the other”?
And no I don’t really expect empathy and understanding from anyone. Call me jaded: People are by and large way too caught up in isms to see the person in front of them for who they are. Which is why I’m going for mindfulness, as in “did you notice what you just did there”.
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much.
You didn’t read this as ‘we should focus on women less and men more’?
Would you agree with the statement ‘society materially still does much more for men, equality has not been reached, and supporting the fiction that women now have ‘more support than men’ is harmful to women’ ?
You don’t see how that entire comment is scapegoating women for men’s issues - which largely derive from lost economic status, and not women?
You didn’t read this as ‘we should focus on women less and men more’?
I read it in the context of the whole post. It’s the most pointed statement. I would have said it differently, yes, something along the lines of “We’re at a point where boys and girls should be focussed on equally”. We’re not in the 50s where it was necessary to make young girls believe they could have a career other than housewives, have a right to decide about their own life path, etc, continuing that kind of “empower the girls” focus while society has changed is not equality.
At least over here it’s been 110% socially accepted for generations.
Would you agree with the statement ‘society materially still does much more for men, equality has not been reached,
Going to ignore those two because it’d be long and distract from the discussion. Suffice to say that yes we should pay social types of work more but the reason it’s underpaid is not misogyny but capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities, and “equality” is such a broad term that the question really can’t be answered without first asking “where”, and “do we even care”. Yes men are by and large physically stronger than women and instead suck at the social martial arts.
and supporting the fiction that women now have ‘more support than men’ is harmful to women’ ?
That question is a) loaded and b) besides the point. The question is whether young boys feel disadvantaged, hopeless, directionless, are not educated in how to use their energy productively. And yes denying those feelings is harmful to women because it allows pied pipers like Tate to train an army of misogynists.
And do note that in Tate’s case it’s not ideology, it’s pure psychology and emotion. You have paleo-conservatives who’d like to live in the 1600s and those have virtually zero pull, but a tiny, angry, incoherent Chihuahua like Tate gets all the followers. His ideology is a product of the issue, not the issue itself.
You don’t see how that entire comment is scapegoating women for men’s issues - which largely derive from lost economic status, and not women?
Not at all. It was I who brought up that education is (in many places) female-domniated and therefore women have their share in the blame. Also we’re talking about teens, here. Economic status doesn’t play into it, it’s lack of perspective and men generally don’t care about being bakers as long as they can still have a family of their own. It’s a respectable job. Don’t project female aspirations to be queen bee onto men.
totally disagree with you. The older men pied pipering these young men away are entirely doing it out of grievances about economic status, which has family units falling apart as a side effect (most men can’t afford to support a stay at home partner).
The young men are buying it, and joining right-wing organizations which prop up the economic status quo for the rich, hurt their own economic prospects, and do nothing to solve the root problem.
You seem to get close to the truth when you admit the thing about “capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities”, but I can’t tell if you think that’s okay because of a naturalistic fallacy, or if you’re admitting that women’s labor is systemically undervalued by capitalism and it needs to be addressed.
it’s always funny to hear men focus on the education part of the equation, which pays nothing, and when its shown that women statistically do better they see as ‘unnatural’ / ‘needing fixing’ …
… but ignore or dismiss the career part of the equation, which makes up the majority of adult life, is the portion that generates resources via pay, and is the portion that men statistically do better at.
Maybe its a side effect of the young men complaining basically having not had experienced all their privileges yet, because they’ve been in the education phase.
Hopefully you won’t tell me you think one is natural and one is not.
The older men pied pipering these young men away are entirely doing it out of grievances about economic status, which has family units falling apart as a side effect (most men can’t afford to support a stay at home partner).
Tate is a multi-millionaire. Status is actually his whole thing and frankly speaking I don’t think he cares about family I have the heavy suspicion he’s gay. As said: Angry Chihuahua syndrome. The man can’t operate without an inflated ego and looks pathetic to any man older than 20 and not himself an angry Chihuahua. But he certainly has the funds to do pretty much anything he wants to do (thanks to his grift). IIRC (this is from an article about him which I certainly won’t be able to find on the net right now): He was born in low economical status, saw some cool sports car or the other and how the driver treated a parking attendant with dismissive disgust, and then and there decided that he’s going to be the one, not the other. Not very bright, the guy, thinking that those are the only two options (and kicks to the head during his MMA “career” didn’t help, either).
The young men are buying it, and joining right-wing organizations which prop up the economic status quo for the rich, hurt their own economic prospects, and do nothing to solve the root problem.
Yes. They’re clueless. Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
You seem to get close to the truth when you admit the thing about “capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities”, but I can’t tell if you think that’s okay because of a naturalistic fallacy, or if you’re admitting that women’s labor is systemically undervalued by capitalism and it needs to be addressed.
I’m an Anarchist, capitalism needs abolishment. But yes addressing things is a perfectly valid step on that path, all anarchism is gradualist anyway.
it’s always funny to hear men focus on the education part of the equation, which pays nothing, and when its shown that women statistically do better they see as ‘unnatural’ / ‘needing fixing’ …
… but ignore or dismiss the career part of the equation, which makes up the majority of adult life, is the portion that generates resources via pay, and is the portion that men statistically do better at.
Wait what where are we right now. The reason I’m focussing on education in this instance is because Tate fans simply aren’t old enough to have careers. They just have a feeling that their career portion of life is fucked before it even started, and not necessarily because they can’t get a high-status job, but because without a high-status job they won’t be respected, and won’t get a partner. In reality there’s plenty of cashiers perfectly willing to be wonderful mothers of the kids of my example baker. That “you’re not worth anything if you don’t rake in money” is another reason why capitalism must go. Not to mention that realistically the only way to make serious money without being a fraud is to be born rich. The other way is to be a one in a bazillion inventor or something.
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids, or countering it with “but other systemic issues kids have no control over”, which is pretty much all that I’m trying to get out of you here.
Also, back to capitalism: I said before that the education thing was a big, but not sole, reason for Tate having fans. Another reason is youth unemployment over here in Europe and it got better but we had over 50% youth unemployment in Greece and Spain, Greece and Italy still were at over 30% in 2019, down to 20% by now. That right there is a damper on career prospects, now isn’t it?
Maybe its a side effect of the young men complaining basically having not had experienced all their privileges yet, because they’ve been in the education phase.
What privilege does an unemployed man have? Aside from economical issues you have psychological ones, not contributing to the tribe means lack of self-esteem and you’re on a downward spiral into alcoholism, anger, or both. In terms of evolutionary psychology it’s men self-outcasting by reading the room, then thinking “wait I actually do have something to contribute” and if that’s not reciprocated, they aren’t told “well yes how about this thing which allows you to lead a dignified life” or something to that effect, voila you have a neurosis.
And there I was, thinking that feminism accepted that patriarchy hurts men…
I never said that, you’re quoting someone else.
If you want me to point to a big (but not sole) cause then it’s in the lack of male role models available to boys, as well as those who are available having to tip-toe around the issue. Like, try being a male teacher in a female-dominated educational environment and argue that the boys need to roughhouse: Instead of learning, under supervision, how to do so safely and without causing interpersonal conflict down the line, to learn to control their energy, there’s, in my perception, this desire from lived feminism to “train the shopping cart race energy out of boys”. Which won’t ever work, what you instead get is pent-up energy without any skill in directing it in productive ways.
Said grifters take the boys’ indignation about being bereft of that aspect of their development, and that energy, and fuck them up even more. It’s literally that simple.
The issue is not elevating girls, the issue isn’t even not investing energy into the boys, the issue is spending all that energy on having them sit still in class until their bored brains ooze out of their ears… and even if they manage to do that you get statistics like boys needing to be significantly better in class to get equal grades. And then educators complain about lack of respect. The issue is the energy investment causing the problem because, and now I am going to blame women: Feminism at large doesn’t get men. Never has. Never was willing to listen. To be edgy: The best it gets is academic Karens psycho-analysing their own animus and thinking it’s actual men. That combined with educational systems being female-dominated and engaging in toxic masculinity in the “men can’t raise children their input isn’t even necessary when it comes to boys women understand better” gets you a system which fails the boys, allowing characters like Tate to succeed.
(I’ll leave the issue that that kind of attitude is officially called toxic masculinity to another rant, feminism has a terminology problem).
You’re right, I now see what was someone else.
What confuses me is that you read a comment chain where a man told a woman that the reason that men are suffering is that women have too many resources, which I rebutted. And that made you want to argue with ME.
Why let the sexism slide from your fellow man but try to police my response to it?
The thing I was policing was the “but what about women on the other side of the Atlantic” attitude, as well as specifically blaming clueless erm Halbstarke1 for the system that made them that way.
Rebutting undercomplex analysis like that doesn’t exactly help the issue, displacing rightful anger about US politics onto the backs of failed youth. Supreme Court justices are old enough to know better, Tate fans on average barely have pubes.
1 German for “half-strong” for (immature) post-puberty boys to up to early 20s or so, in the sense of “yep they have physical strength, but no strength of wisdom or, for that matter, knowing WTF they’re doing”. “Yob” captures some of the meaning, but it’s very very approximate.
So you are arguing for me to show empathy to young men, as Im being blamed for their problems, and the commentor is advocating that resources be taken from me?
seems you expect quite a lot of empathy and understanding from me and none from the other commentor, or young men.
Ok let me just point out the other side of the perspective coin, here. Quoth that same post:
…which is exactly what you did: Shushing him for complaining about getting shushed. Probably not even aware of the extent of the power you wield with that. I didn’t really read that comment as “we should take resources away from women” much less “abortion should be outlawed” but explaining how those boys perceive things. Would you disagree with the statement “We should avoid the perception that more is being done for one sex than for the other”?
And no I don’t really expect empathy and understanding from anyone. Call me jaded: People are by and large way too caught up in isms to see the person in front of them for who they are. Which is why I’m going for mindfulness, as in “did you notice what you just did there”.
You didn’t read this as ‘we should focus on women less and men more’?
Would you agree with the statement ‘society materially still does much more for men, equality has not been reached, and supporting the fiction that women now have ‘more support than men’ is harmful to women’ ?
You don’t see how that entire comment is scapegoating women for men’s issues - which largely derive from lost economic status, and not women?
I read it in the context of the whole post. It’s the most pointed statement. I would have said it differently, yes, something along the lines of “We’re at a point where boys and girls should be focussed on equally”. We’re not in the 50s where it was necessary to make young girls believe they could have a career other than housewives, have a right to decide about their own life path, etc, continuing that kind of “empower the girls” focus while society has changed is not equality.
At least over here it’s been 110% socially accepted for generations.
Going to ignore those two because it’d be long and distract from the discussion. Suffice to say that yes we should pay social types of work more but the reason it’s underpaid is not misogyny but capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities, and “equality” is such a broad term that the question really can’t be answered without first asking “where”, and “do we even care”. Yes men are by and large physically stronger than women and instead suck at the social martial arts.
That question is a) loaded and b) besides the point. The question is whether young boys feel disadvantaged, hopeless, directionless, are not educated in how to use their energy productively. And yes denying those feelings is harmful to women because it allows pied pipers like Tate to train an army of misogynists.
And do note that in Tate’s case it’s not ideology, it’s pure psychology and emotion. You have paleo-conservatives who’d like to live in the 1600s and those have virtually zero pull, but a tiny, angry, incoherent Chihuahua like Tate gets all the followers. His ideology is a product of the issue, not the issue itself.
Not at all. It was I who brought up that education is (in many places) female-domniated and therefore women have their share in the blame. Also we’re talking about teens, here. Economic status doesn’t play into it, it’s lack of perspective and men generally don’t care about being bakers as long as they can still have a family of their own. It’s a respectable job. Don’t project female aspirations to be queen bee onto men.
totally disagree with you. The older men pied pipering these young men away are entirely doing it out of grievances about economic status, which has family units falling apart as a side effect (most men can’t afford to support a stay at home partner).
The young men are buying it, and joining right-wing organizations which prop up the economic status quo for the rich, hurt their own economic prospects, and do nothing to solve the root problem.
You seem to get close to the truth when you admit the thing about “capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities”, but I can’t tell if you think that’s okay because of a naturalistic fallacy, or if you’re admitting that women’s labor is systemically undervalued by capitalism and it needs to be addressed.
it’s always funny to hear men focus on the education part of the equation, which pays nothing, and when its shown that women statistically do better they see as ‘unnatural’ / ‘needing fixing’ …
… but ignore or dismiss the career part of the equation, which makes up the majority of adult life, is the portion that generates resources via pay, and is the portion that men statistically do better at.
Maybe its a side effect of the young men complaining basically having not had experienced all their privileges yet, because they’ve been in the education phase.
Hopefully you won’t tell me you think one is natural and one is not.
Tate is a multi-millionaire. Status is actually his whole thing and frankly speaking I don’t think he cares about family I have the heavy suspicion he’s gay. As said: Angry Chihuahua syndrome. The man can’t operate without an inflated ego and looks pathetic to any man older than 20 and not himself an angry Chihuahua. But he certainly has the funds to do pretty much anything he wants to do (thanks to his grift). IIRC (this is from an article about him which I certainly won’t be able to find on the net right now): He was born in low economical status, saw some cool sports car or the other and how the driver treated a parking attendant with dismissive disgust, and then and there decided that he’s going to be the one, not the other. Not very bright, the guy, thinking that those are the only two options (and kicks to the head during his MMA “career” didn’t help, either).
Yes. They’re clueless. Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
I’m an Anarchist, capitalism needs abolishment. But yes addressing things is a perfectly valid step on that path, all anarchism is gradualist anyway.
Wait what where are we right now. The reason I’m focussing on education in this instance is because Tate fans simply aren’t old enough to have careers. They just have a feeling that their career portion of life is fucked before it even started, and not necessarily because they can’t get a high-status job, but because without a high-status job they won’t be respected, and won’t get a partner. In reality there’s plenty of cashiers perfectly willing to be wonderful mothers of the kids of my example baker. That “you’re not worth anything if you don’t rake in money” is another reason why capitalism must go. Not to mention that realistically the only way to make serious money without being a fraud is to be born rich. The other way is to be a one in a bazillion inventor or something.
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids, or countering it with “but other systemic issues kids have no control over”, which is pretty much all that I’m trying to get out of you here.
Also, back to capitalism: I said before that the education thing was a big, but not sole, reason for Tate having fans. Another reason is youth unemployment over here in Europe and it got better but we had over 50% youth unemployment in Greece and Spain, Greece and Italy still were at over 30% in 2019, down to 20% by now. That right there is a damper on career prospects, now isn’t it?
What privilege does an unemployed man have? Aside from economical issues you have psychological ones, not contributing to the tribe means lack of self-esteem and you’re on a downward spiral into alcoholism, anger, or both. In terms of evolutionary psychology it’s men self-outcasting by reading the room, then thinking “wait I actually do have something to contribute” and if that’s not reciprocated, they aren’t told “well yes how about this thing which allows you to lead a dignified life” or something to that effect, voila you have a neurosis.
And there I was, thinking that feminism accepted that patriarchy hurts men…