I hate that I have to raise a son in an environment that is becoming so hateful towards men just for existing. I saw a picture of a woman at a protest against a child molester and she had a sign that says “not all men but it’s ALWAYS a man”
As someone who was molested by a woman when I was a kid, that shit is offensive and aggressive.
This shit is why its hard to get men onto the left.
Exactly. You have one side that doesn’t give a shit about men’s issues and demonizes them for it and the other side that also doesn’t give a shit about men’s issues but gives the occasional lip service or pretends to listen on occasion.
Neither is a good choice, but one is not openly hostile, and that makes it easy to fall that way.
And it’s worse because nonone is asking for a lot. Listening to men won’t set us back fifty years. It would actually bring more men into the leftist fold. But of course that is not what it’s about to them.
I went to college in the 80’s. I had a history teacher explain to me how the Civil War and Jim Crow were not about gaining economic advantage from subjugation of free labor, but rather white men keeping white women in their place by demonizing black men.
I needed an A, and I got one. I told her what she wanted to hear. Not proud of that, but not ashamed either.
That crap was allowed to fester because it was only a few crazy people. Then it grew enough to spawn the likes of Trump.
I recommend this excellent book, “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristin Du Mez who brings receipts for the argument that disaffected people were looking for a Trump to show up. (She is an evangelical who is not a fan of autocracy)
Yeah, modern narratives basically teach men to hate themselves. I drank the Kool aid until my early 20s until I dated a narcissists and came to the realization that abusive pieces of shit come in all genders. And then when I need to turn to look for a role model there is nothing out there except right wing douche bags. Then we worry why young men gravitate towards the alt right.
Your point is all over the place. Men aren’t being targeted with criticism simply for existing. That’s a disingenuous framing of the issue. Are we supposed to feel sympathetic to your plight because you saw a picture online of something you disagreed with?
Some men deserve criticism for being chronically emotionally, psychologically, and socially underdeveloped. Incels are people that exist as well. It’s 2024. If it’s truly “not all men” then you don’t need to take everything online at face value if you aren’t one of the toxic men that this post is addressing.
See it’s funny how it’s always men who take criticism for being immature and never ever women. My ex was ridiculously stunted. She was a capricious, gas lighting brat. The ratio of immature men to women out there is pretty even, yet it’s a running joke that men are the immature ones.
My ex couldn’t even cook herself lunch, hold a job, and expected me to just hand her money like I’m her dad.
Plenty of women out there like that too, just as many as there are man boys out there who think their wives are their mom. But it’s only ever a thing to go after the men on this issue
If it’s truly “not all men” then you don’t need to take everything online at face value if you aren’t one of the toxic men that this post is addressing.
Using the word men to criticise only the toxic ones and telling all the ones that aren’t toxic to just not feel addressed is pretty weird to me.
I once read a comment that said something like, “if your post would be considered racist if you wrote ‘black men’ instead of just ‘men’, then it’s very likely misandrist.”
You could not have proven their point more strongly if you tried.
Fact is, even if it was “always a man”, the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of men don’t do it, making the assumptions about men not only immoral, but inaccurate.
White supremacists use the exact same logic, pointing at crime statistics, to justify prejudice toward black people. This is the male sex version of “around blacks never relax”, nothing more, don’t pretend otherwise.
White supremacists use the exact same logic, pointing at crime statistics, to justify prejudice toward black people. This is the male sex version of “around blacks never relax”, nothing more, don’t pretend otherwise.
Often including literally the same data from the same source, just broken down by gender instead of race. You see UCR crime stats are perfectly reasonable for drawing population level conclusions from when talking about sex, but are deeply flawed to the point of uselessness when talking about race.
But men and black folks share a lot when it comes to the criminal justice system. For example, if I asked you for some data to use as a demonstration that the criminal justice system is unfairly biased against black folks (or for white folks) you could name off a litany of statistics. Essentially every one of those examples also has a gender gap, and it’s against men. For many of them the gender gap is larger than the racial one.
I’m a man, I’m not a rapist. In fact I’m the survivor of childhood sexual abuse. It’s absurdly offensive to me to be called the thing I hate most, an rapist. And I hate that I’m fair game at being called that, simply because I was born the “bad gender”.
The thing is I like being a man, I’m proud to be a man, I’m happy with my life. but even saying that makes people look at you weird. I have no idea why.
My daughter is 13 now and I get weird looks when I hold her hand on hug her in public. She’s a huge daddy’s girl so she’s very affectionate, and I hate the weird looks old ladies give me
Yes, you did. In approximately the same way that All Lives Matter was just a dog-whistley way of saying “No they don’t” to Black Lives Matter.
When someone says I suffer from THING, responding with other people suffer too as your primary message is always a dismissal of the person’s suffering.
If you want to avoid the inferred message, include an affirmative message of acknowledgement, like “nobody should suffer like that.”
If we’re going to compare this to BLM then you said something amongst the lines of “White people have to grow up in a world where everyone hates them.” and I responded “Actually, black people have had it worse.”
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
The entire model you are operating on has it’s roots in Marxist class conflict. Broadly the problem with that is that it was created in terms of economic class, and economic class is where it works best (or possibly at all). It can be shoehorned into other dynamics, but it only really works to the degree that that dynamic is also a proxy for economic class.
For example, it works passably well for race in the US because broadly speaking race is a decent proxy for economic class in 21st century America, though less of one than it used to be. It’s a bad fit for sex or gender precisely because those things do not function as a proxy for economic class at all.
the hell are you on about? this discussion was about men claiming everybody hates them, even though they’re privileged on most aspects of life. why do you start rambling about the working class?
I’m saying that the whole model of gender dynamics built on an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy you operate on is flawed in a way that makes it at best useless. That model has it’s roots in Marxist class conflict, and as a consequence the entire model and worldview only works as well as the alleged oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in question functions as a proxy for economic class. Which is why it works imperfectly for race, and even worse for sex/gender. You could literally make an argument for oppressed/oppressor zip codes and it would fit the model better than it does to sex/gender.
As an analogy, the model you operate on is like a geocentric model of the solar system. It’s just plain not accurate, and every time it’s made absolutely clear it’s not accurate another apologetic is stitched on like epicycles and deferents were used to shoehorn geocentric models into line with observations instead of being willing to take the leap that it’s bad model and should be tossed. This is where we get things like “the patriarchy hurts men too!” in exactly the way that no one would dare talk about how white supremacy hurts white people or capitalism hurts billionaires.
But as far as hating men, just look at the news media and reporting on various issues in the world. When “1/4 of the people this bad thing happens to are women!” is a call to action that something needs to be done to protect specifically women from the bad thing (see homelessness or suicide) which should be a hint about how men are viewed.
When you see casualties from some tragedy or another divided into women, children and “other”, when you can go on your social media of choice and it’s broadly acceptable to shit on men as a group with no qualifiers but you need to be extremely narrow and specific to say anything negative about any woman that should be another.
Hell, Reddit admins outright officially stated that their rules against hate speech do not apply to speech attacking men.
When you look at domestic violence resources, that should be a hint (yes, men are less often victims than women but the difference is not remotely as large as the difference in available resources).
Or look at heath care funding - there are numerous cutouts for women’s health in the ACA while the word “men” only occurs in the context of “men and women” and ACA coverage of contraception includes every kind of FDA recognized contraceptive, including barrier methods…for women. Cancer research funding (including government funding) is dramatically higher for cancers that are female-specific or massively female majority (breast, cervical, ovarian, etc) than for cancers that are male-specific or massively male majority (testicular, prostate, etc).
Kentucky passed a law a few years requiring judges in contested custody cases start from the presumption that equal custody is best unless there’s a good reason otherwise, as opposed to just starting from their own biases - this was heavily protested by women’s groups for…some reason.
Title fucking IX (a law that just outright bans sex discrimination in any federally funded educational program in the US) is consistently implemented in a way that is biased against men and boys in education, a great example being that the current US government website explaining how to handle Title IX claims outright says that if a girl wants to play a sport and there is no girl’s team she must be allowed to try out for the boy’s team and be put on the team if she’s capable but if a boy wants to play a sport and there is no boy’s team there is no requirement to allow him anything at all. There have been a fuckton of lawsuits over the last decade or so from boys accused of sexual assault in an educational context going through the system and being denied due process over things like: not being allowed to know what the process actually is or how school officials are trained for it, not being allowed access to exculpatory evidence the school had, not being allowed to know what evidence was being arrayed against them until immediately before proceedings so that they wouldn’t know what they needed to defend against, not being told what the accusation actually was or who was accusing them until the hearing so they couldn’t build a defense at all, not being allowed to have legal counsel present, that kind of thing. Even one case where a boy accused a girl of sexually assaulting him and when she found out she accused him of doing the same in response so his accusation was tossed as being retaliatory, and no I didn’t get my pronouns wrong in that and yes it is fucked up.
And the sad part is I can keep going with stuff like this for thousands and thousands of words and you probably won’t read it, and if you do you’ll probably ignore it or simply dub it misogyny and call me an incel or w/e. And the even sadder part is that this is the tip of a huge and depressing iceberg.
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I’m just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
There are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of “white men” are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a “white man” is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s thesis, in which case it would merely be “racially prejudical.”.)
(edit: wrote “autistic” twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
It is helpful that they know there are humans in the world who behave like monsters, and that some of them are men who target people who they perceive to be weaker than themselves.
So children, women, other men who are either physically smaller or in a lower position of power. That’s what they need to know. So they can protect themselves, and help stop others from becoming someone else’s monster if the opportunity arises.
Doing things like speaking out against sexual harassment, and calling out bullying behavior, this is everyone’s responsibility btw. Not just men’s and boys, but this is what needs to be taught so world can suck less.
Women are the most hated people the world over. No advantages, only downsides. Any man to ever walk the earth can never experience the equivalent horrors of being despised as much as a woman.
You’re massively ignorant of just how little the world cares about the suffering of males. The same amount of harm to a female will, ten out of ten times, generate more sympathy and outrage than that same harm to a male.
When Boko Haram attacked hundreds of thousands of children, the only reports that generated any outrage were the ones talking only about girls being kidnapped, even though they murdered all the boys. Hell, when the victims were all male, the sex wasn’t even stated in the articles, it’s just “students” etc. But every single time girls were victimized, you’d better believe “girls” or “schoolgirls” was explicitly used. The reason is simple–people in general actually give a shit about girls.
The empathy gap between the sexes is very real, and your comment is a perfect example of it.
I really should’ve used /s . I thought the hyperbole would make it obvious, but it’s a little sad we live in the world where people might actually truly believe it.
I hate that I have to raise a son in an environment that is becoming so hateful towards men just for existing. I saw a picture of a woman at a protest against a child molester and she had a sign that says “not all men but it’s ALWAYS a man” As someone who was molested by a woman when I was a kid, that shit is offensive and aggressive.
The down votes say it all. This shit is why its hard to get men onto the left.
Exactly. You have one side that doesn’t give a shit about men’s issues and demonizes them for it and the other side that also doesn’t give a shit about men’s issues but gives the occasional lip service or pretends to listen on occasion.
Neither is a good choice, but one is not openly hostile, and that makes it easy to fall that way.
And it’s worse because nonone is asking for a lot. Listening to men won’t set us back fifty years. It would actually bring more men into the leftist fold. But of course that is not what it’s about to them.
I went to college in the 80’s. I had a history teacher explain to me how the Civil War and Jim Crow were not about gaining economic advantage from subjugation of free labor, but rather white men keeping white women in their place by demonizing black men.
I needed an A, and I got one. I told her what she wanted to hear. Not proud of that, but not ashamed either.
That crap was allowed to fester because it was only a few crazy people. Then it grew enough to spawn the likes of Trump.
I recommend this excellent book, “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristin Du Mez who brings receipts for the argument that disaffected people were looking for a Trump to show up. (She is an evangelical who is not a fan of autocracy)
All this to say, you are correct.
Yeah, modern narratives basically teach men to hate themselves. I drank the Kool aid until my early 20s until I dated a narcissists and came to the realization that abusive pieces of shit come in all genders. And then when I need to turn to look for a role model there is nothing out there except right wing douche bags. Then we worry why young men gravitate towards the alt right.
Your point is all over the place. Men aren’t being targeted with criticism simply for existing. That’s a disingenuous framing of the issue. Are we supposed to feel sympathetic to your plight because you saw a picture online of something you disagreed with?
Some men deserve criticism for being chronically emotionally, psychologically, and socially underdeveloped. Incels are people that exist as well. It’s 2024. If it’s truly “not all men” then you don’t need to take everything online at face value if you aren’t one of the toxic men that this post is addressing.
See it’s funny how it’s always men who take criticism for being immature and never ever women. My ex was ridiculously stunted. She was a capricious, gas lighting brat. The ratio of immature men to women out there is pretty even, yet it’s a running joke that men are the immature ones. My ex couldn’t even cook herself lunch, hold a job, and expected me to just hand her money like I’m her dad. Plenty of women out there like that too, just as many as there are man boys out there who think their wives are their mom. But it’s only ever a thing to go after the men on this issue
Using the word men to criticise only the toxic ones and telling all the ones that aren’t toxic to just not feel addressed is pretty weird to me.
Especially when if one were to criticize women this same logic very definitely would not be applied.
I once read a comment that said something like, “if your post would be considered racist if you wrote ‘black men’ instead of just ‘men’, then it’s very likely misandrist.”
Good words to live by if you aren’t an asshole.
Damn, I can’t tell if this is honest or some really deep cutting sarcasm/satire.
Edit: the autism got me again
You could not have proven their point more strongly if you tried.
Fact is, even if it was “always a man”, the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of men don’t do it, making the assumptions about men not only immoral, but inaccurate.
White supremacists use the exact same logic, pointing at crime statistics, to justify prejudice toward black people. This is the male sex version of “around blacks never relax”, nothing more, don’t pretend otherwise.
Often including literally the same data from the same source, just broken down by gender instead of race. You see UCR crime stats are perfectly reasonable for drawing population level conclusions from when talking about sex, but are deeply flawed to the point of uselessness when talking about race.
But men and black folks share a lot when it comes to the criminal justice system. For example, if I asked you for some data to use as a demonstration that the criminal justice system is unfairly biased against black folks (or for white folks) you could name off a litany of statistics. Essentially every one of those examples also has a gender gap, and it’s against men. For many of them the gender gap is larger than the racial one.
I’m a man, I’m not a rapist. In fact I’m the survivor of childhood sexual abuse. It’s absurdly offensive to me to be called the thing I hate most, an rapist. And I hate that I’m fair game at being called that, simply because I was born the “bad gender”.
The thing is I like being a man, I’m proud to be a man, I’m happy with my life. but even saying that makes people look at you weird. I have no idea why.
another thing that I really dislike is that men are looked at weird when they say they like children, often assuming in a sexual way
our whole species is genetically built to find children cute, we literally have no other choice
My daughter is 13 now and I get weird looks when I hold her hand on hug her in public. She’s a huge daddy’s girl so she’s very affectionate, and I hate the weird looks old ladies give me
think about how it must have felt for all those mothers who had to raise a daughter in an environment that has always been so hateful towards women…
“Fuck you, they had it worse” isn’t really helpful either.
I think the point is to expand the empathy bubble.
It’s hard to have empathy when none is given.
Sometimes it do be hard, yeah. But often most things worth doing are hard in some way.
Why is that my son’s fault?
i never said it was, and I’m sure your son will be fine.
Yes, you did. In approximately the same way that All Lives Matter was just a dog-whistley way of saying “No they don’t” to Black Lives Matter.
When someone says I suffer from THING, responding with other people suffer too as your primary message is always a dismissal of the person’s suffering.
If you want to avoid the inferred message, include an affirmative message of acknowledgement, like “nobody should suffer like that.”
If we’re going to compare this to BLM then you said something amongst the lines of “White people have to grow up in a world where everyone hates them.” and I responded “Actually, black people have had it worse.”
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
The entire model you are operating on has it’s roots in Marxist class conflict. Broadly the problem with that is that it was created in terms of economic class, and economic class is where it works best (or possibly at all). It can be shoehorned into other dynamics, but it only really works to the degree that that dynamic is also a proxy for economic class.
For example, it works passably well for race in the US because broadly speaking race is a decent proxy for economic class in 21st century America, though less of one than it used to be. It’s a bad fit for sex or gender precisely because those things do not function as a proxy for economic class at all.
the hell are you on about? this discussion was about men claiming everybody hates them, even though they’re privileged on most aspects of life. why do you start rambling about the working class?
I’m saying that the whole model of gender dynamics built on an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy you operate on is flawed in a way that makes it at best useless. That model has it’s roots in Marxist class conflict, and as a consequence the entire model and worldview only works as well as the alleged oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in question functions as a proxy for economic class. Which is why it works imperfectly for race, and even worse for sex/gender. You could literally make an argument for oppressed/oppressor zip codes and it would fit the model better than it does to sex/gender.
As an analogy, the model you operate on is like a geocentric model of the solar system. It’s just plain not accurate, and every time it’s made absolutely clear it’s not accurate another apologetic is stitched on like epicycles and deferents were used to shoehorn geocentric models into line with observations instead of being willing to take the leap that it’s bad model and should be tossed. This is where we get things like “the patriarchy hurts men too!” in exactly the way that no one would dare talk about how white supremacy hurts white people or capitalism hurts billionaires.
But as far as hating men, just look at the news media and reporting on various issues in the world. When “1/4 of the people this bad thing happens to are women!” is a call to action that something needs to be done to protect specifically women from the bad thing (see homelessness or suicide) which should be a hint about how men are viewed.
When you see casualties from some tragedy or another divided into women, children and “other”, when you can go on your social media of choice and it’s broadly acceptable to shit on men as a group with no qualifiers but you need to be extremely narrow and specific to say anything negative about any woman that should be another.
Hell, Reddit admins outright officially stated that their rules against hate speech do not apply to speech attacking men.
When you look at domestic violence resources, that should be a hint (yes, men are less often victims than women but the difference is not remotely as large as the difference in available resources).
Or look at heath care funding - there are numerous cutouts for women’s health in the ACA while the word “men” only occurs in the context of “men and women” and ACA coverage of contraception includes every kind of FDA recognized contraceptive, including barrier methods…for women. Cancer research funding (including government funding) is dramatically higher for cancers that are female-specific or massively female majority (breast, cervical, ovarian, etc) than for cancers that are male-specific or massively male majority (testicular, prostate, etc).
Kentucky passed a law a few years requiring judges in contested custody cases start from the presumption that equal custody is best unless there’s a good reason otherwise, as opposed to just starting from their own biases - this was heavily protested by women’s groups for…some reason.
Title fucking IX (a law that just outright bans sex discrimination in any federally funded educational program in the US) is consistently implemented in a way that is biased against men and boys in education, a great example being that the current US government website explaining how to handle Title IX claims outright says that if a girl wants to play a sport and there is no girl’s team she must be allowed to try out for the boy’s team and be put on the team if she’s capable but if a boy wants to play a sport and there is no boy’s team there is no requirement to allow him anything at all. There have been a fuckton of lawsuits over the last decade or so from boys accused of sexual assault in an educational context going through the system and being denied due process over things like: not being allowed to know what the process actually is or how school officials are trained for it, not being allowed access to exculpatory evidence the school had, not being allowed to know what evidence was being arrayed against them until immediately before proceedings so that they wouldn’t know what they needed to defend against, not being told what the accusation actually was or who was accusing them until the hearing so they couldn’t build a defense at all, not being allowed to have legal counsel present, that kind of thing. Even one case where a boy accused a girl of sexually assaulting him and when she found out she accused him of doing the same in response so his accusation was tossed as being retaliatory, and no I didn’t get my pronouns wrong in that and yes it is fucked up.
And the sad part is I can keep going with stuff like this for thousands and thousands of words and you probably won’t read it, and if you do you’ll probably ignore it or simply dub it misogyny and call me an incel or w/e. And the even sadder part is that this is the tip of a huge and depressing iceberg.
I’ve had the cops called on me for watching my nephew at the park.
Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
so did they arrest you?
Fuck off, cunt.
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I’m just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
so I’m racist now for saying
white men are notnot all white men are oppressed? alright then sure budThere are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of “white men” are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a “white man” is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s thesis, in which case it would merely be “racially prejudical.”.)
(edit: wrote “autistic” twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
Yeah you are. Real nice that you expect us to raise a generation of boys to have to see themselves as monsters.
It’s like you’re here just to sully the debate with bad faith responses.
No one is telling boys that they are monsters.
It is helpful that they know there are humans in the world who behave like monsters, and that some of them are men who target people who they perceive to be weaker than themselves.
So children, women, other men who are either physically smaller or in a lower position of power. That’s what they need to know. So they can protect themselves, and help stop others from becoming someone else’s monster if the opportunity arises.
Doing things like speaking out against sexual harassment, and calling out bullying behavior, this is everyone’s responsibility btw. Not just men’s and boys, but this is what needs to be taught so world can suck less.
But we only ever talk about boys being the problem. Half the comments here are about how dangerous men are.
No one is asking them to see themselves as monsters? You’re creating a problem where there isn’t one.
What is a child supposed to pull from the bear vs man type of discussions?
to be better than a bear probably?
children already know to be better than bears, what this argument provides for them is a window into what other people assume based only on gender
Women are the most hated people the world over. No advantages, only downsides. Any man to ever walk the earth can never experience the equivalent horrors of being despised as much as a woman.
Edit: /s. Do people seriously think this way?
The suicide rate among men, including boys is going up. Will that make you feel better?
I can’t tell if this is an example of Poe’s law or why it’s a thing.
It was supposed to be hyperbolic and sarcastic, but it looks like such beliefs can actually be held.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are two of my favorite things, but Poe’s ls is a real thing.
Without a clear indicator of intent, it’s impossible to distinguish snark from extremism
You’re massively ignorant of just how little the world cares about the suffering of males. The same amount of harm to a female will, ten out of ten times, generate more sympathy and outrage than that same harm to a male.
When Boko Haram attacked hundreds of thousands of children, the only reports that generated any outrage were the ones talking only about girls being kidnapped, even though they murdered all the boys. Hell, when the victims were all male, the sex wasn’t even stated in the articles, it’s just “students” etc. But every single time girls were victimized, you’d better believe “girls” or “schoolgirls” was explicitly used. The reason is simple–people in general actually give a shit about girls.
The empathy gap between the sexes is very real, and your comment is a perfect example of it.
I really should’ve used /s . I thought the hyperbole would make it obvious, but it’s a little sad we live in the world where people might actually truly believe it.
Poe’s law, sorry for going off on you.