This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.
Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people
Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.
Be productive
Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.
Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:
Assume good faith
Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.
No bigotry
Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.
No brigading
Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rudderless men with little career prospects realizing they'll never get to a comfortable lifestyle without a major change.
They can either change themselves for the better or join a movement that aims to change society and hope that it propels them upward.
Better education, empathy, and economic conditions can turn the tide, but it's a big job.
That’s literally all there is to it. Even in the olden days it was a well known fact that a generation of young men without (economic, social, romantic) perspective is a generation who will radicalize to either side. If the system isn’t working for them they will seek to change the system.
If politicians were serious about curbing extremism they would make sure everyone simply lives a decent standard of living, with prospects for their future.
This 💯
Its also why I believe most modern governments try REALLY hard not to go to war. Not because of the death and destruction but because they dont want a combat trained populace.
Also because shared adversity unites, the differences between people get really unimportant when they are trying to keep each other alive in combat.
The idea of a significant percentage of "us" coming back and being united and trained well enough to actually threaten the system scares the piss out of them.
It's the same logic as lotto players. Spend this little bit of money/effort while expecting life changing results.
It also must be noted that the left in the US has been vilifying men for many years now. It's starting to change, but that made it easy for extremists to swoop in and radicalize men.
It's not the left who's been villifying men, it's TERFs, who are firmly right wing and in fact love hanging out with Nazis.
One: because fascist would ensure their place at the top of the social/political/financial pyramid.
Two: because the world's economic system lied to them. Being a morally good, hard working human guaranteed a comfortable life. In fact being morally good and/or hard working may actually be a hindrance to living a comfortable life.
Three: poor education and exploitation. Ever book that is banned or text book that says, "slavery was understandable in fact slavers are benevolent leaders saving the 'others' from themselves." and you know, being used by those that actually hold power. Donald Trump would pretend to be the next Joseph Stalin if it ment he would be protected by those willing to do violence in his name. Just the fact that governments have" heads of state" means those that want to be president, king, prime minister probably should be allowed to be leaders.
Not sure point One is fully correct. I think they often realize things is going to be shitty for everyone, but they think it will be less shitty for them if it gets more shitty for others. They know they will be an exploited working class (even if it is not phrased that way for them) as long as there is a part of the working class (immigrant workers, women workers, ...) that is beneath them it makes them feel more 'on top'.
Ya but making everyone else's life more shitty ensures they are still "on top" in their eyes. It's the same reason most confederate men fought in the civil war even though they didn't own slaves. Ya their life sucked but at least they weren't slaves. The moment more human beings get emancipated, be that from slavery, wage slavery, women suffrage, segregation, etc that means they have more competition in the flawed economic, social, and political systems designed around capitalism.
Because they are immersed in an ecosystem that pretends that respect for human dignity and unearned respect for authority are identical because they use the same word.
They believe that others should respect the innate authority they feel they should hold as men. Simultaneously, since they don't get that, they don't feel like they need to respect other people's right to exist.
And then a group promises them everything they've ever wanted, if they are willing to do fascist shit. Of course they're into it.
I highly doubt any language is more correlated with authoritarianism, particularly the English language. There is a cultural aspect to collective action over individualism, but I think authoritarianism is a base human personality trait.
You might change your view about that if you ever read "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin. I used to think the same, but it appears things like authoritarianism and hierarchies actually run contrary to evolution. Not that the trait doesn't exist, but it appears to be something that has been exacerbated in cultures that deliberately adopt a hierarchical system vs. something that's just natural to all humans.
Evolutionary biologist here.
I am someone who believes that multilevel selection is a primary driver of evolutionary dynamics and works at levels ranging from the organism to the ecosystem (at various levels of effectiveness). Kropotkin is nice philosophically, although he is read about far more often than he is read. That’s entirely reasonable, because his theories provide a foundation for lines of investigation we still pursue today but are obviously outdated, as are the ideas of everyone whose work predated discoveries like genes.
If you want a more modern view on the evolutionary benefits of cooperation, I would suggest starting with Harvard biology professor EO Wilson, who specialized in ants and ended up concluding that humans were in fact a eusocial species - unique among primates and one of very few on earth. He invented the field (or at least added additional formalization to the study) of sociobiology - the evolution of social behaviors. It’s the same category as ants and bees. For an anthropological and cross-cultural perspective I’d suggest Graeber. For a mathematical and economic perspective, I’d start with Sam Bowles. For the foundations of pro-social behavior in primates, I’d recommend Frans de Waal.
I’d be happy to try to answer any questions on the subject.
I'm not qualified to engage in your discussion, nor do I have a good experience trusting random internet strangers who say they're certain things, but here's Kropotkin's book for anyone who wants to read it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
Might tell the rest of the story.
Couple of things:
Social justice influencers acridly piling blame for social problems onto cis white males without nuance. This makes a lot of cis white males feel targeted for factors outside their control, and so they flock to ideologies that venerate them.
General dissatisfaction with career and other life prospects, in the shadow of an idyllic bygone status-quo propped up by exploitative short term policies. They saw their parents and grandparents thrive in that trad-coded utopia, and they're noticing the inadequacies of their own prospects.
So mostly those two things, exacerbated by fascist propagandists who have taken advantage of them to promote the facade of a return-to-roots. Also good old fashioned cult of personality.
I feel that point 1 is actually a fascist in disguise psyop in the first place.
You’d think that, but no, there are tons of people on the left who code “white people” as bad. It just pushes these guys (and gals) to the right.
They aren't left. They are paid assets or bots by the global fascist movement. I absolutely refuse to consider them left because their actions benefit the right. Who cares what they say, what do their actions do?
I agree with this bit, they aren’t left and their actions benefit the right. I came upon the histories of rich white men exploiting labor forces and toxic business practices to squeeze the lower classes when I was a teenager and discovered those same kind of histories had been evolved or evolve in some circles to outright hate for white people succeeding in life as if it was their white privilege and blood money inherited wealth that carried them that far. The truth I think is yea white privilege exists but also many of those people earned their place in society by working with the opportunities life made available, trying hard in school or getting into trade work and sticking with it. Of course their are many people benefiting from inherited wealth and status of their family and I imagine many of our oligarchs in America are white. Still now is not the time for these so called leftists to start outright hating every white cisgendered man or woman they meet. It only serves the enemies of progress to do that. It wrongfully ostracizes masses of white men and the only place they have to turn is to people like Ben Shapiro or other similar talking heads telling them, “look at how the left treats us and how much they want to destroy our way of life.” The left by its principles or ideals is a place of acceptance and equality. Anyone not practicing that towards all walks of life, excluding any violent extremists, is not supporting the left and should not call themselves a leftist.
To your first point, the nature of communicating right now, particularly on the internet, means there is no room to have two different voices:
You can’t have an “inside voice” (communicating to those who already agree with you and reinforcing micro-cultural support) and an “outside voice” (communicating with everyone else, potentially finding or convincing new supporters); every statement is heard by everyone and is, de facto, outside voice.
And that’s only for people who would otherwise care to differentiate— the overall culture views conflict as a virtue, and so rewards people who “tell it like it is,” ignoring the fact that you can tell it like it is in ways that don’t maximize belligerence and alienation.
Bro Rogan.
Its real simple. It gives them identity and something to go after in a society that offers them nothing. So they get into woodworking, hunting, fighting, only eat meat for a while or some shit.
Males are expendable, the way that all people in capitalism are expendable. But to quote Babe from animal farm: Some are more expendable than others. Males have lower impulse control and have a biological more likely to engage in high risk/ high reward. Most white males are facing the same dilemmas and contradictions around the shittiness and meaninglessness of their existence as everyone else; every one else just doesn't have a direct pipeline to radicalism engineered for them. For years YT has been trying to steer me down the white nationalist rabbit hole, in-spite of how unappologetically leftist the programing I consume is. I'm a bit older and I've been around and politically aware since I was a teen and made the impulsive decision to enlist, then months later we were invading Afghanistan and then Iraq.
To incorrectly quote Michael Brooks quoting MLK incorrectly: "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.". The right offers a clear moral framework for engaging with young men and giving them a 'moral right' to fight for. The left is contradicted on this, and don't understand what it means to take on a spiritual crusade. But Michael Brooks did. He understood that having something to base your work around is critical.
This same issue plagues young men from all nationalities and walks of life, not just young white men in the US. We have to collectively find a way to give meaning to peoples lives or that innate search for meaning will be taken advantage of.
Some dude building a bench is an issue?
There is no overlap ... they are the same thing. It's not new, it's a continuation.
This isn't a new movement, its the same idea that was forwarded by fascists that started the second world war.
I suspect there are a lot of disenfranchised people looking for a strongman to tell them they belong.
Because they are the one group that doesn't need to think "If I start singling out this group of people for any reason, then others will use that same approach with me". Ironically, the reason for the vigour of their fascism is the blindly stupid argument that young white men will soon be exctinct.