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…
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,
attacking capitalism. Addressing it requires attacking capitalism, and some men would rather attack women.
Coddling their perspective is also not required. They must wake to the fact that the rich stole their future, not women.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes. It sounds to me like thats exactly what he did and you typed it out yourself. We just see things from opposite perspectives entirely.
edit:
I’m being combative now but I don’t care:
Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women, and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason. Maybe it’s not a problem with ‘the left’ at all. Do you need some statistics to back this up?
But in reality its because right-wing is associated with authoritarian attitudes so it’s just easier to get a right wing person in line than a left wing person.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes.
Oh I misread you then, and, looking back, to no fault of yours.
But I still contend that Tate going for disaffected young boys is incidental to his character: In another situation, he would’ve taken up another grift. Tate as the public phenomenon we’re witnessing is contingent on his victims, without those he would’ve become a drug dealer or something. Pimp, human trafficker, defendant, yes all that – but not figurehead. Characters like him have existed through the ages, also in the age of the internet, but never was there so much of a following. Fuck I had one of them as a neighbour.
Coddling their perspective is also not required.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective: That their fears about their life being fucked before it even really began are valid and should be addressed.
Now, my sorry ass isn’t going to bring down capitalism any time soon. Teaching that it’s not women but fat cats who are at fault also won’t help, at best you get actionism – why would a couple of hot-heads without experience succeed were generations of leftists failed. What I can and do do though is teach martial arts, and with that exactly that what those youngsters are missing, and that is the capacity to navigate the fucked-up state we find ourselves in: There’s no “art” in martial art without mastery of your emotions, without training your capacity to observe, to defuse, broadly speaking without increasing your capacity to adapt to whatever situation you find yourself in in a self-directed manner – if you adapt without that self-direction you’re being controlled and will hate yourself for it because you will have to sacrifice core values and human social instincts. That is what I teach those boys real men do: Live up to the challenge, and teach others how to do the same. And that even if a gal becomes (usually verbally) abusive, the most you do is tickle her until she lost that train of thought. You know, proportional self-defence.
Occasionally news reaches me of a mother of a friend of a guy not wanting them to attend. Something something Karen not wanting “her little boy to learn violence”. That, right there, is a future Tate fan and yes I blame Karen for failing her son, for preferring being an ism over being a mother, though not publicly. Wouldn’t do any good.
…unless doing what Karen is doing is what you meant by coddling. Then, by all means, don’t do it, boys resent it anyways, even if they humour you by appearing dependent they’ll look anywhere but that place to form their actual character. But it’s also not a thing I ever mentioned much less advocated.
You know what Spartan mothers did? When their sons came of age and thus militiamen, they’d hand them the family shield, telling them “come back with it or on it or don’t come back at all”. Now I don’t advocate the militarism but as an archetypal image it still symbolises the necessary break in the mother-son relationship, female confirmation of manhood, splendidly, just take the crassness with a grain of salt. And you know what without that supposition of dependence looming over him he’s even likely to enjoy coming over for dinner.
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women,
Marginally, at best, especially with AfD voters being like 2/3rd protest votes in the east by people who previously voted anything else, but initially hard left. They just ran out of options because they can’t get their asses up and participate actively to make sure that their actual concerns are addressed because having a political opinion, much less advocating for it, was never a thing in the GDR. 30 years of re-unification with a socialist country full of actual socialists and the federal republic became less social. WTF. But I digress.
and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason.
Pot, kettle. This is capitalism, if you want someone who listens you hire a therapist.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective
Where?
My whole fucking point is that these guys shouldn’t be coddled. If I made a typo somewhere saying they should be, I want to fix it. But I think you may have misread again.
Attacking capitalism is coddling their perspective by validating that they are getting hurt instead of descending into “shush your fault for being you” territory. I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.
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…
attacking capitalism. Addressing it requires attacking capitalism, and some men would rather attack women. Coddling their perspective is also not required. They must wake to the fact that the rich stole their future, not women.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes. It sounds to me like thats exactly what he did and you typed it out yourself. We just see things from opposite perspectives entirely.
edit: I’m being combative now but I don’t care:
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women, and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason. Maybe it’s not a problem with ‘the left’ at all. Do you need some statistics to back this up?
But in reality its because right-wing is associated with authoritarian attitudes so it’s just easier to get a right wing person in line than a left wing person.
Oh I misread you then, and, looking back, to no fault of yours.
But I still contend that Tate going for disaffected young boys is incidental to his character: In another situation, he would’ve taken up another grift. Tate as the public phenomenon we’re witnessing is contingent on his victims, without those he would’ve become a drug dealer or something. Pimp, human trafficker, defendant, yes all that – but not figurehead. Characters like him have existed through the ages, also in the age of the internet, but never was there so much of a following. Fuck I had one of them as a neighbour.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective: That their fears about their life being fucked before it even really began are valid and should be addressed.
Now, my sorry ass isn’t going to bring down capitalism any time soon. Teaching that it’s not women but fat cats who are at fault also won’t help, at best you get actionism – why would a couple of hot-heads without experience succeed were generations of leftists failed. What I can and do do though is teach martial arts, and with that exactly that what those youngsters are missing, and that is the capacity to navigate the fucked-up state we find ourselves in: There’s no “art” in martial art without mastery of your emotions, without training your capacity to observe, to defuse, broadly speaking without increasing your capacity to adapt to whatever situation you find yourself in in a self-directed manner – if you adapt without that self-direction you’re being controlled and will hate yourself for it because you will have to sacrifice core values and human social instincts. That is what I teach those boys real men do: Live up to the challenge, and teach others how to do the same. And that even if a gal becomes (usually verbally) abusive, the most you do is tickle her until she lost that train of thought. You know, proportional self-defence.
Occasionally news reaches me of a mother of a friend of a guy not wanting them to attend. Something something Karen not wanting “her little boy to learn violence”. That, right there, is a future Tate fan and yes I blame Karen for failing her son, for preferring being an ism over being a mother, though not publicly. Wouldn’t do any good.
…unless doing what Karen is doing is what you meant by coddling. Then, by all means, don’t do it, boys resent it anyways, even if they humour you by appearing dependent they’ll look anywhere but that place to form their actual character. But it’s also not a thing I ever mentioned much less advocated.
You know what Spartan mothers did? When their sons came of age and thus militiamen, they’d hand them the family shield, telling them “come back with it or on it or don’t come back at all”. Now I don’t advocate the militarism but as an archetypal image it still symbolises the necessary break in the mother-son relationship, female confirmation of manhood, splendidly, just take the crassness with a grain of salt. And you know what without that supposition of dependence looming over him he’s even likely to enjoy coming over for dinner.
Marginally, at best, especially with AfD voters being like 2/3rd protest votes in the east by people who previously voted anything else, but initially hard left. They just ran out of options because they can’t get their asses up and participate actively to make sure that their actual concerns are addressed because having a political opinion, much less advocating for it, was never a thing in the GDR. 30 years of re-unification with a socialist country full of actual socialists and the federal republic became less social. WTF. But I digress.
Pot, kettle. This is capitalism, if you want someone who listens you hire a therapist.
Where?
My whole fucking point is that these guys shouldn’t be coddled. If I made a typo somewhere saying they should be, I want to fix it. But I think you may have misread again.
Attacking capitalism is coddling their perspective by validating that they are getting hurt instead of descending into “shush your fault for being you” territory. I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.