8ball
Maximum Facepalm
The end will be heralded by the sound of frenetic room-tidying.
Why are more young men than older seeing feminism as a bad thing?
- Thread starter Cloo
- Start date
The end will be heralded by the sound of frenetic room-tidying.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
You need to explain to him that his malaise is the result of wider structural issues and malignant social relations and that what is required is total system change ie. revolution.
And that this needs to begin with the killing of all the landlords.
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
Fair point well presented
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
Then there's the issue of children, and how many are getting raised by only one parent (usually a mum, occasionally a dad), because of how so many of us feel we shouldn't have to compromise in relationships.
I blame myself too. My son, for example, being raised by a single dad in part because his dad is happier alone than in a couple, doesn't have the time or energy to try 'dating', and anyway finds it hard to trust women to get too close after x y and z life experience. Very much a mirror of thousands of single mums up and down the country.
I feel as if it's not fair on him, he'll never experience 'family' in the way we like to imagine some ideal nuclear version of that - though on the other hand I hope he's at least learning how to be a functional and happy single man.
Further, I 99% restrict his internet use at home so as yet he's not encountering the worst of it. As he gets older and does encounter such things, I'll have to talk them over with him so for now I'm focussed on making our relationship good enough that he'll go on willingly talking to me about what he sees.
His mum (when she was involved with him, she's withdrawn herself now for well over a year and never calls him any more) used to let him use the Internet however he wanted. So, imperfect as things are for him, I hope some serious harms are being avoided. For now.
Last edited:
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
Thing is, the patriarchy is absolutely colossal. It so immense that it's like trying to imagine outer space. It makes me dizzy to think of the harm it's doing. It's not just about gender, it touches on class structure and capitalism and all the other fun stuff. It's the reason why black women bleed to death in maternity wards because no one's listening, yes, but it's also the reason why working class men on building sites are seen as expendable. And why there's a pandemic of poor mental health among young men.
Rather than trying to get your head around this framework that affects absolutely everything that you do, it's easier to listen to someone who gives you something much simpler to blame. Andrew Tate is only filling a gap in the market here, there were plenty of lazy thinkers who needed someone with a simple solution to cling to (and my GOD I've never seen a more unhappy-looking human being. He is the very essence of the saying "some people are so poor, all they have is money.") When you think about what he's saying, the need to control women, the need to "be better", it's not dissimilar to lots of religions. Which are also a lazy, simplistic way of trying to make sense of the patriarchy. (Maybe if it were called something else people would be more willing to discuss it?)
Feminism is about more than equality between the sexes. It sees the patriarchy and wants to kick it in the shins. But no wonder people are scared of it and want a more simplistic answer. It's absolutely dizzying, you'd want some reassurance and comfort, and there it is. On your phone. Literally in your pocket, you don't even have to turn up at a draughty church on Sundays.
Rather than trying to get your head around this framework that affects absolutely everything that you do, it's easier to listen to someone who gives you something much simpler to blame. Andrew Tate is only filling a gap in the market here, there were plenty of lazy thinkers who needed someone with a simple solution to cling to (and my GOD I've never seen a more unhappy-looking human being. He is the very essence of the saying "some people are so poor, all they have is money.") When you think about what he's saying, the need to control women, the need to "be better", it's not dissimilar to lots of religions. Which are also a lazy, simplistic way of trying to make sense of the patriarchy. (Maybe if it were called something else people would be more willing to discuss it?)
Feminism is about more than equality between the sexes. It sees the patriarchy and wants to kick it in the shins. But no wonder people are scared of it and want a more simplistic answer. It's absolutely dizzying, you'd want some reassurance and comfort, and there it is. On your phone. Literally in your pocket, you don't even have to turn up at a draughty church on Sundays.
zedr
new but not *that* new
ive worked with quite a few young people who've had short or long brushes with the alt right/anti feminism. one of whom was led down this path by Calvin fucking Robinson when that joker was a teacher.There'll likely be a fuck ton of it around in another 20 years too - it's been a thing for thousands of years and, like racism and homophobia and other isms, it's one of those prejudices that will probably never entirely disappear and typically only changes very slowly, over generations, like the Martin Amis comment above.
Obviously my perception of whether it's got notably worse in recent years is entirely down to what I'm exposed to and being aware enough of it - our experiences here will likely be wholly different. I'll certainly concede your point in that it doesn't take a huge amount of "feeling safe" for the inner misogynist to emerge in some people but that still comes across to me as being less common than it was 20 years ago (YMMV, obviously). My feeling is that whilst there's a generally improving trend in general, over my lifetime, and my hope is that symptoms like Tate and right-wing authoritarianism and populism are short-lived products of economic conditions and don't in themselves represent a backwards step for society as a whole.
This was the first time I've read of serial objectification from all and sundry not based on gender but access to housing and it was thoroughly depressing to read - sorry you've been subjected to that sort of treatment muscovyduck. From my POV you're doing the right thing though, having a stable housing situation is hugely important for one's mental health and you're right to regard it highly; possibly even more so is housing that isn't tied to a (mal)functioning relationship, which invites mutual disaster.
Probably I've just led too sheltered and privileged a life that I've never had to confront this sort of thing but I think I need to ask the youngsters at work about how much housing is a factor next time we're at the pub. I guess I assumed that "moving in" was still seen as a huge step, not "fifth date" material.
It'll probably be posted by someone else already by the time I post this, but an apposite article from The Graun this morning:
‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencerswww.theguardian.com
Not really anything new there, and no real examination of the economic angle. On the opening paragraph; certainly I've known a fair few people, men and women, who've had troubles with the word "feminism" based on negative stereotyping of the term to equate to "male-bashing" or "female superiority", in the same way that terms like "trans agenda" or "woke ideology" are repeatedly used to mis-represent what are essentially "equal rights" issues.
The talk of attitudes in schools certainly doesn't seem markedly different from my teenage years, I guess just with easier access to porn and better communication for bullying.
I'd be curious to know if anyone here has or knows kids/teenagers who have ever started to fall in with modern anti-feminism, or a close brush with it.
Ive found its not so hard to support kids to realise that individual grifters are in fact grifters. There's been a drop off in popularity with Tate amongst kids I work with (he's now an embarrassing meme, not 'top g') and the same happened for Peterson, Paul Joseph Watson and a bunch of those earlier alt right weirdos. The problem is the ideology and rage behind these figures.
I think its right to talk about the patriarchy being so all consuming and nebulous that its hard to solve this problem by blaming individual influencers. Young people are still raised in a desperately sexist world, and subconsciously take on all of those power structures, yet are consciously told to ignore them, avoid them, or actively reject them. I notice this a lot with boys I teach, who want to argue that 'feminism has gone too far', or will jump on comments I make about structural racism. I feel lucky because the place I work at means I can take the time to break down some of their copy and pasted arguments from the internet and encourage them to be compassionate to their peers. But we're fighting against their socialisation outside of school, which is largely online, and their parents largely don't know how to support/restrict/monitor their online activity.
at previous places ive worked, many well meaning liberal colleagues have just wanted to shut down any discussion of sexism, feminism etc either because there wasn't enough time in the lesson, or they didn't feel comfortable navigating the conversation with everyone in the class. this only seemed to inflame and radicalise those kids who wanted to 'debate'. I used to hold a debate club and would mainly get boys at various stages down the alt right pipeline who wanted to discuss how feminism was sexist and many other conservative talking points. this fitted the narrative they'd heard online that 'liberals' or 'the left' were shutting down debate, and the same as Andree Tate saying that school is part of The Matrix indoctrinating kids.
there's also the terrifyingly easy access of porn to kids. I'd say a third the boys in my current class were accessing porn from the age of 11 (or earlier), but were still too shy to talk to the girls in their class. so they build up these complexes about how powerless they are in real life compared to how powerful porn makes them feel and thats what I'm really struggling with at the moment.
it doesn't help that we have a political and economic system which doesn't give a fuck about changing any of this, which means we will have to continue combatting the symptoms without ever being able to challenge the root causes.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
Parking to onside a moment the huge and almost unfathomable structural problems of sexism, I think there is a greater conciousness now, and it does seem to be recent, that being forever online is somehow a bit sad, and even dangerous. "I should spend all day on the internet" said no one, ever. Greater awareness of the manipulations and mechanisms of online life will grow, I think. Most people I speak to are aware of how manipulative (all in the name of money, yuck) it can be.
I worry about my son who, if i let him, he would be online from dawn to dusk. Literally. Day after day. Therefore I don't let him. He is ADHD and autistic. I hope he gets a group of mates. I mean it goes without saying, but as a parent it's important to knwo about these things.
I worry about my son who, if i let him, he would be online from dawn to dusk. Literally. Day after day. Therefore I don't let him. He is ADHD and autistic. I hope he gets a group of mates. I mean it goes without saying, but as a parent it's important to knwo about these things.
Cloo
Approved by toads
I also have a son with ADHD - both my kids have phones now, son has no interest at all in social media though does watch YouTube, I think largely about Nintendo stuff and I'm aware there is an axis of misogyny/dodgy right-wingness that can come from that angle, although the good thing is he seems hyper-aware of sexism, racism etc, which is good. He also does have mates IRL (all neurodivergent) and I think is about to get int Dungeons & Dragons which we are encouraging as a positive social activity. Oldest is on Insta and Tiktok but more looking at silly memes rather than posting about themself or using it socially - indeed social media, as many people have noted lately, isn't 'social' anymore, it's more people looking at memes, funny videos and influencers, because algorithms make it not much use for actually sharing anything with your social network because they are drowned out by memes, funny videos and influencers. So perhaps the misogyny is less a 'social media' problem because that's not what it is anymore - it's an 'algorithm-led media' problem.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I'm not an expert on either (for hopefully obvious reasons) but from what I can see the key difference is that Tate offers a horrifically warped version of success while Peterson is more about the grievance driven loser end of the market. Which arguably makes Peterson more dangerous because the space for successful vicious Tiktok pimps is very small and the grievance driven loser pipeline is essentially unlimited. It also maybe creates a natural Tate - Peterson progression for men who rapidly realise the Tate version of success isn't there for them.
zedr
new but not *that* new
this is such an important point. what we call social media is not really the main medium for socialising for many young people. gaming is (and I guess by extension, things like discord). especially for pre teen boys. they will play online with (again largely) men and boys from across a many age ranges and be exposed to content and ideas which there is little scope for moderating apart from deciding which games might have appropriate/inappropriate players. there are loads of games which are lovely and have relatively kind player bases, but the games most of my students seem drawn too are not those games.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
From what I've seen, a large portion of incels are people who have been through what Tate and other Manosphere/Redpill types have to offer and found it severely wanting. To that end, they have pretty-much given-up and just hate everything/everyone who they see as doing better than them.
Then the remainder consist largely of men who have never properly/adequately engaged with the rest of society to begin with - and there are a whole lot of reasons for that, not always of their own making. ASD-sufferers do seem to make-up a large portion of these.
To me, Tate, his ilk and the the far-Right types embedded in the "movement" share an approach that plays hard to basic desires and throws-out simple/quick solutions to perceived problems and weaknesses and provides a sense of "community" amongst their followers, whilst they rip them-off stupid.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
Recently came across the term gymcel. Former incels who become absolutely swoll and hench through the gym but still can’t attract women. They still see women as some kind of game where you have to do x y z to get to the next level, I.e get a date. Getting a shag is like invisible mode on Mario. A weird kind of positivisitic scientism approach to dating and sex. This is why the humanities are so important for us all, including in a sense of belonging and connection, they in the main cannot be reduced but inspire and create wonder and open up new vistas internally etc. but that’s a whole other packet of Pringles.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Yes, this sort of mechanising human/sexual interaction has been there the whole time with these guys but it does seem to have become an avenue in its own right more recently.
Maybe it can be tied to the whole "alpha-male" thing? ie if you cant become one by dint of your earning-power, lifestyle, achievements etc, you can still do it by getting "built" - and of course a lot of teenage boys want to get bigger/more masculine, fast - That one goes back a lot longer than the current situation.
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
Personally, I think the real heft behind inceldom for young men isn't the sex as such - though the validation you get from someone willingly having sex with you is a kind of psychological gold dust - but the sure and certain knowledge that even if you do have sex, any kids that come from it will most likely be taken from you. So there's more to sex than sex, it's actually about power - I mean trying to process the idea that in terms of sex and having kids, 'she' gets to choose, therefore 'she' has more power than me. I think this is the motivation for much if not all modern misogyny.
Maybe if and when men can be implanted with embryos created from donor eggs, it might help...
Fuck knows.
Maybe if and when men can be implanted with embryos created from donor eggs, it might help...
Fuck knows.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I think a) that's not true and b) teenagers don't have having kids at the forefront of their motivations on the whole.
That reads very much like you have a vested interest here tbh.
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
I really don't, I'm already fully parenting my only child.
I'm not so much talking about teenagers as young (20s) men, seeing their friends have kids they're then excluded from seeing. I know a few of those. The bitterness they carry is extraordinarily deep.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
Not sure about that tbh. I think most young men are not thinking about procreation when they are thinking about sex. They just want, as you say, the validation, and the sex. And they are hypnotised to an almost overwhelming degree by the female form in their lives (and on their screens). Sexual desire is extrememly powerful in men, especially young men. Think of the money they spend on it, or the hours of porn consumed. The fact that billions is spent on men paying for it, and little to almost nothing by women. For whatever reason, socialisation or biological, I'm not sure, I don't think that same mechanism of sexual desire is the same in women. I have heard it so often "I can't really desire a man until I fully connect with him", that sort of thing. So there is a real dissonance there - you have half that young population wanting sex, wanting it bad, and wanting it often, and the other half only wanting it under certain conditions (as a general not as a hard and fast rule). Often, sadly, a womans very physical safety the driving factor much of the time.
We are different in this regards, not absoloutly and not perhaps inherently. But that's also what a lot of these men are dealign with. and sadly they start to blame women for this and the level of entitlement becomes sickening and dangerous. It's actually almost pathological in that is so obsessive that it makes them gain 7 stone in muscle at the gym, or do the whole looksmaxing plastic surjergy thing. Also a lot of these men are not looking to connect with women in a general sense but only want to connect with a certain conventionally attractive woman. They feel entitled to it. Overlooking all the people they could be connecting with. The whole manosphere outlook is crazily warped for those who fall into it.
I think I have mentioend this berfore but I can remember talking with mates growing up how hard it was to get any sort of sexual contact at times. I didn't see this desire as "oh you just want to use womens bodies for your own gratification as disposable objects". It was deeper than that and I don't think it's always helpful to label men's desire that way because for many men they don't see women as objects but still want to have sex now and then. OF course there are some men who don't give a fuck about the person one bit and will act in that manner.
But i can remember those chats with mates clearly and distinctly that this was never then blamed on women. We sort of sighed about it for maybe a minute and then went and played football. The world is different now.
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
But it's not actually about sex is it, it's actually about power. Sex is a kind of sublimation. Young men feel powerless - or, disempowered - because women do the choosing. Women control sex as they see it (and the kids that result as time goes on) so then because sex is a thing they want so badly, they feel bitter when everything they try to get some, fails. They fail, in the eyes of a whole society that says in a multitude of ways and has been for decades ... You ain't living till you're loving.
Tate et al feed on that bitterness, that sense of injustice and disempowerment, and they ferment (foment but I like the pun) it into really incredibly toxic stuff. Perverting ideas of self-improvement, undermining all moral codes, but i think sex is only the vehicle - the cargo it carries is power.
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
Everyone has made some really great points that I find I can't argue with. I agree with most of the statements made, and have to reiterate a piece of the common thread: Social media and video games, plus various insecurities.
In regard to the original post with the article, the "disadvantaged youth" / BLM movement: I've noticed a shift in thinking, well before the protests a couple years ago. From my own experiences of being friends with kids from different backgrounds, I remember the conversations of how they're told from birth to be a specific type of person due to how they are perceived in the real world. Easy target for police action, gang action, fighting with in their community. They had to be wise from a young age in what they do and how they treat the people they are with. All it takes is one little misstep to take a conversation out of context and the whole world blows up. Then again, some of the kids I knew, came from families who believed the man made the money, told the wife and children what to do, and the family bowed down to it and didn't know better. So that being ingrained in the kids' heads, I can see why a boy may see a girl trying to do everything he does in the world, and he doesn't like it. It wasn't how he was brought up. But then again, that's not all the families in the world. It's just a handful.
Girls may be on line and doing everything like the boys, but the violent video games are geared more towards the boys than the girls (it was more noticeable 15 years ago so I could stand corrected in today's view). Currently, the social network sites (Tik Tok, Insta, for example) are rampant with girls (and very few boys) using filters on their image and have a full face of makeup. They are dressed questionably (not all the time though, I give it that) and you wonder if an adult approved this. Although seeing a lot of males in full makeup showing off brands as "content creators" could be pushing other males away because "it's not normal" and they (the ones in disgust perhaps) don't know how to treat the situation. Body and gender positivity can only go so far if we let it.
I do agree with the comments about the housing situation (insecurities) and the dating insecurities.
Even as "far back as" 2004, I knew a guy who said once he graduated college (that year), he was going to find an apartment and move me in to it with him (he had some delusions of grandeur in how he perceived our friendship.. we weren't even friends so I don't understand why lot of his remarks about me had to happen. We just ran in a lot of the same circles and lived on the same floor in the dorms). Needless to say, I didn't move in with him.
Speed up to 2010, a guy I was "seeing" (for 5 1/2 months) started talking about getting a bigger apartment so I could move in with him. No, no theme here with these guys. Trust me. It's just coincidence. There was no conversation about how serious our relationship was, nor was there a back and forth discussion about me moving in. He up and decided to tell me a few times that he is making enough money (in IT) that he knows of a few units in his complex with 2 bedrooms (instead of the one bedroom he was in) and he would put his name in the lottery to shift apartments if I wanted (no thanks). If I recall correctly, he mentioned this to me in month 4 of us knowing each other. He and I didn't do a lot of things together (while dating) to begin with, to warrant my moving in with him so quickly. I mean, we barely knew each other - the only times we were together in person was on a weekend for a few hours, so I never actively called him my boyfriend or said I was in love with him (because I wasn't). He was just someone I was hanging out with on occasion. For me, it was rather an uncomfortable 5 1/2 months and I'm glad I ended up being the one to break up with him. If we had 3 things in common, that was 2 things too many. It was just a weird dynamic and I didn't want to string him along because there was nothing to really keep us together. I wanted to try, but I just couldn't see the need due to us being completely different people with completely different interests.
I know that sounds like I'm the bad person, but the guy deserved to be happy and with someone who wanted to be with him. I didn't want to be a fake person and stay with him because I'd be doing him wrong and a disservice. As I said, we barely did things together and the only conversations during the week were via email to say "what do you want to do this weekend, if anything?". I know I was his "second girlfriend, ever" so I probably scared him off dating, or scarred him for life.
The last thing I can think of, is politics being another driving force in the male mindset of crazy feminism. Especially in the US, as mentioned by comments above, some of the radical groups forcing ideas and ideals on everyone (and having a sexual deviant as a former president exclaim he does certain things to women... and people go crazy over it. Sending the message of it being okay). It is troublesome and I worry for parents because their children are going to see what's going on in the world and not know how to react. You can be one person in the house with your family, but when you're among friends or strangers outside, you can be someone else. It's a push and pull and could make a child think it's fine to treat each other messily. So many 25 - 50 year olds and over are actually mean and spiteful due to how the political climate is, and I've gotten some pretty nasty comments by (now ex) male co-workers during the election season. One man in particular, was in a leadership role in the place we were at, and he said some things to me that probably should have gotten him fired, but I was a guest in his building and the other 4 men who worked there were of the same mindset so I got ganged up on. All due to who was on the television during the debate. They ate that guy's words up and spit it back out like gospel truth.
In regard to the original post with the article, the "disadvantaged youth" / BLM movement: I've noticed a shift in thinking, well before the protests a couple years ago. From my own experiences of being friends with kids from different backgrounds, I remember the conversations of how they're told from birth to be a specific type of person due to how they are perceived in the real world. Easy target for police action, gang action, fighting with in their community. They had to be wise from a young age in what they do and how they treat the people they are with. All it takes is one little misstep to take a conversation out of context and the whole world blows up. Then again, some of the kids I knew, came from families who believed the man made the money, told the wife and children what to do, and the family bowed down to it and didn't know better. So that being ingrained in the kids' heads, I can see why a boy may see a girl trying to do everything he does in the world, and he doesn't like it. It wasn't how he was brought up. But then again, that's not all the families in the world. It's just a handful.
Girls may be on line and doing everything like the boys, but the violent video games are geared more towards the boys than the girls (it was more noticeable 15 years ago so I could stand corrected in today's view). Currently, the social network sites (Tik Tok, Insta, for example) are rampant with girls (and very few boys) using filters on their image and have a full face of makeup. They are dressed questionably (not all the time though, I give it that) and you wonder if an adult approved this. Although seeing a lot of males in full makeup showing off brands as "content creators" could be pushing other males away because "it's not normal" and they (the ones in disgust perhaps) don't know how to treat the situation. Body and gender positivity can only go so far if we let it.
I do agree with the comments about the housing situation (insecurities) and the dating insecurities.
Even as "far back as" 2004, I knew a guy who said once he graduated college (that year), he was going to find an apartment and move me in to it with him (he had some delusions of grandeur in how he perceived our friendship.. we weren't even friends so I don't understand why lot of his remarks about me had to happen. We just ran in a lot of the same circles and lived on the same floor in the dorms). Needless to say, I didn't move in with him.
Speed up to 2010, a guy I was "seeing" (for 5 1/2 months) started talking about getting a bigger apartment so I could move in with him. No, no theme here with these guys. Trust me. It's just coincidence. There was no conversation about how serious our relationship was, nor was there a back and forth discussion about me moving in. He up and decided to tell me a few times that he is making enough money (in IT) that he knows of a few units in his complex with 2 bedrooms (instead of the one bedroom he was in) and he would put his name in the lottery to shift apartments if I wanted (no thanks). If I recall correctly, he mentioned this to me in month 4 of us knowing each other. He and I didn't do a lot of things together (while dating) to begin with, to warrant my moving in with him so quickly. I mean, we barely knew each other - the only times we were together in person was on a weekend for a few hours, so I never actively called him my boyfriend or said I was in love with him (because I wasn't). He was just someone I was hanging out with on occasion. For me, it was rather an uncomfortable 5 1/2 months and I'm glad I ended up being the one to break up with him. If we had 3 things in common, that was 2 things too many. It was just a weird dynamic and I didn't want to string him along because there was nothing to really keep us together. I wanted to try, but I just couldn't see the need due to us being completely different people with completely different interests.
I know that sounds like I'm the bad person, but the guy deserved to be happy and with someone who wanted to be with him. I didn't want to be a fake person and stay with him because I'd be doing him wrong and a disservice. As I said, we barely did things together and the only conversations during the week were via email to say "what do you want to do this weekend, if anything?". I know I was his "second girlfriend, ever" so I probably scared him off dating, or scarred him for life.
The last thing I can think of, is politics being another driving force in the male mindset of crazy feminism. Especially in the US, as mentioned by comments above, some of the radical groups forcing ideas and ideals on everyone (and having a sexual deviant as a former president exclaim he does certain things to women... and people go crazy over it. Sending the message of it being okay). It is troublesome and I worry for parents because their children are going to see what's going on in the world and not know how to react. You can be one person in the house with your family, but when you're among friends or strangers outside, you can be someone else. It's a push and pull and could make a child think it's fine to treat each other messily. So many 25 - 50 year olds and over are actually mean and spiteful due to how the political climate is, and I've gotten some pretty nasty comments by (now ex) male co-workers during the election season. One man in particular, was in a leadership role in the place we were at, and he said some things to me that probably should have gotten him fired, but I was a guest in his building and the other 4 men who worked there were of the same mindset so I got ganged up on. All due to who was on the television during the debate. They ate that guy's words up and spit it back out like gospel truth.
Cloo
Approved by toads
There's this strong theme of rose-tinted mawkishness about the past with much Right-Wing politics that basically says 'Equality screwed everything up, so the way to make the world as good as it was [NB: it wasn't good] is to make the societal context the same as it used to be'. And in some ways you can see how it sounds convincing - yes, it appears that women entering the workforce may have brought about the end of community where people chatted over the fences and having a village to raise your child in etc and the attendant problems with that. BUT - are those outcomes the fault of women's liberation, or of capitalism? Aren't they perhaps a problem of economies starting to demand two incomes, for example? Maybe it could have been handled another way, for example, creating a scenario where one parent, regardless of sex, could choose to stay at home more easily and help maintain their communities? It's not women's fault for gaining more equality, but capitalism's fault for taking advantage of that for more return to the shareholder and none to society.
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
Yes, deeply reactionary and unjust in every conceivable way. Conservatism as such is a pretty middle of the road outlook, the kind of extremism tate represents is only justifiable via the nastiest, most oppressive and abusive politics. Even the taliban would consider tate degenerate imo.
(this was a reply to the post above which is gone now! So lucky/unlucky I didn't quote
)
(this was a reply to the post above which is gone now! So lucky/unlucky I didn't quote
)
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
absoloutly and I do think having one parent not working whatever the gender, is great - certainly was for a breif time in my family. Should be the freedom there and the economic room there to choose. Meanwhile, foodbanks. It's not entirely feminism that bought women into the work place in huge number but as you say you can double everything up, capital wise, with two working. A great deal of families would prefer to have only one work but economic necessisty means its impossible. The slavery to this system can be unreal. These are not even stupid demands but should be a given. It's like all this tech at work, you'd think our jobs would be getting easier. No we just end up being more productive. We just end up doing more in the same amount of time. This is why the idea of 3 day weeks touted often in left wing circles to me should be looked at. i know a load of companies are trialing it. okay if its got to be capitalism, at least give us some fucking leisure time back.
I must admit I don't see this at all Cloo. Right wing politics is based on a paranoid and persecuted state of mind, I don't think there's anything mawkish about it.
BigMoaner
What A Load of Old Bollocks
yes, i removed my post because i just thought it was me mindlessly thinking aloud. but yes, i agree
Cloo
Approved by toads
In terms of the 'Oh, it was all better back then when mum was at home baking cakes and dad came back from work to a dinner made from scratch and children respected their parents', totally sweeping under the rug the shitty deal for woman, the racism, the voicelessness of kids, the ability to wave away domestic violence and sexual assault against women and children etc, it's kind of the flipside that's used to soften the paranoia and persecution side which I totally agree is key.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
It's "closest available woman syndrome" innit.
With a healthy dash of trying to speak a convenient reality into existence. Whats going on in their head is if you act like the way you're behaving is normal, you might convince the woman you're dealing with that its normal and she will just go along with it. Or, you don't want to embarrass him, or some other similar pressure. So we see it in these absurd housing based situations, but these same men will also do the same with problematic sex based behaviour or the other usual arenas of abuse. They bank on the patriarchy already having done the systematic heavy lifting and they only have to do some minor steering.
Fundamentally it's the reduction of women to a series of resources and an entitlement to those resources.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
It is all about power, yes.
However, the main difference between incels and Tate and his ilk seems to be that the incels appear to feel completely powerless in the face of what they see as a female/feminine hierarchy/society/social structure that has totally stacked the cards against them, with only a favoured few allowed through the barrier and their only response is a particularly confused nihilistic mess of hatred and misogyny, with lots of postulation/blaming about how they got into their state little or no direction or dedication on how to actually get out of it.
Tate etc meanwhile pedals another version of where "men" can make/remake themselves in his and his inner circle's image - remember he has a loosely affiliated collection of grifters to widen his appeal to a greater age range, in order to take back that power and put women back in their "place" at the bottom of all things by following his lead/lifestyle/money making scams etc.
Whilst Tate et all are reprehensible enough, the incel mindset is IMO the more long term socially corrosive in that it depends on stoking a huge amount of hatred, deliberate isolation, entitlement and pent-up aggression in its followers. Many of whom seem far more detached from reality than any reasonably normal person should be.
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
Not even just women, also other men who are weak / 'betas' / 'simps' - the only difference is that women are for sex as well as violence. The overall abusive, narcissistic mindset they're selling is the same. In some twisted way, it's meant to make you feel as if you're 'reclaiming your rightful status' in a society gone wrong.
Similar threads
