so overtime i have been seeing the left after the convo’s about men’s place in society, and it has been dismal. There was this video of a trans man talking about the loneliness of men went viral on TikTok and A channel named Aba and Preach covered it from their perspective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZF7k9nVNRw&t=1088s) but it brings up a point i want to touch on

Which is that we will only listen to men’s issues when it is someone who politically agrees with the right things, (patriarchy, toxic masculinity, feminism) but if it was someone like Jordan Peterson, who has actually pulled young men from the brink of suicide, and has been someone who has been someone very critcal of feminists in the past, they do this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZxz7WrW2Yo) literally laughing at the man for crying about men’s issues. Aba and preach also covered this actual video and the responses. heres that video too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abQo5wWkMxs&t=532s)

Or when Dr Michael Reeves, made a video about male inequality, which is linked here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBG1Wgg32Ok&t=1s), when he want on the we are man enough podcast, a feminist podcast about men’s issues, Liz Plank, A feminist, essentially wasn’t actually concerned about the actual argument but rather the language of calling men not being represented in HEAL Jobs (Heath, education, admistration and language) as seen in this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVo-sCPR5CA&t=44s)

But what i want to discuss about these two things is that on one end of the spectrum, a trans man rightfully talks about the void of lacking the connections that he had when was still a woman, and because he said men should take advice from women to become more emotionally vunerable. but when someone, Jordan Peterson has an emotional moment and cries at the plights of disaffaceted young men, The Left cant help but point and laugh at him.

Which is the point i want to make is that when it comes to all the talk about toxic masculinity and men being emotional, it seems to only be for a specific sect of the population, ie, Leftist or Liberal men who curtail the line of being serious about men"s issues but never focus on how society plays a hand in those issues, which includes women, or if they do focus on society, it is quick to blame men.

And even if a man is vunerable with their emotions, ie like Jordan Peterson, because he is a right winger, they just will make fun of him, which reinforces “toxic masculinity” and the gendered stereotypes and expectations that they claim to want to get rid off. And helps not only make Jordan Peterson a viable alternative to them. Or even if they agree with the inequality that men can face, they are often critical of the language or the imprecise nature of what they are saying.

And with the often times toxic and very hypocritical nature of their arguments, the mass generalizations, and painting of men as the bane of existance of women, queer folk, and minorities, dispite the fact that men with in these groups are vicimized much like them. Young men are just deciding to be done with the left, as they really offer no solution other than some false class conciousness as with these 2 videoes by a youtuber named That Dang dad

1 is a critique of a song by Dax, named to be a man (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3-32AcQMQ&t=764s) which just to me, dismisses alot of what men go through and tells men to essentially build community with women, minorities and queer people, (which isnt a bad idea but ill get into why i think it and his other video are a kinda tacit dismissal of what men feel and also just a very bland way of what i like to call the “give a man a mission” play)

2 which is his attempt to answer the question, is the left failing men?, an answer with a resounding yes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVXZo1ld5Nc)

The second reason as to why i feel that young men are essentially not aligned with the left, and feminism which i highlighted earlier is called the “give the men a mission play”, which is essentially, though used by both the right and the left, we are talking about the left which is like this.

“What you are mad at is late stage capitalism, which is fucking us all over so join with us and it will make life easier for not just you but everyone else” Or as it is most commonly used like in this tiktok, where the woman responds to a strawman of man who is frustrated with the current dating market, and feminism with the perils of living under “late stage capitalism”

(This is the tiktok in question https://www.tiktok.com/@elisse.01/video/7198671535073316142?lang=en)

but this is a broader sentiment on the left as stated, mostly in jokes, that if men could instead of “being mad at women” could focus on destroying capistalism and patrarchy, the world would be better, but that is built on 2 false premisies

1 that a communist or socialist revolution would better the lives of anyone, as in history, it truly hasnt and in fact has been more destructive to peoples lives.

2 the presumtion that men have any privilage that men have some one up over women. and have never been the victims of a society that they themselves built to benefit themselves, but has them suffering.

but the entire left does this with mens issues, which is why young men dont really find the left appealing, as the only solutions for men are to either mire in depression, join one side if the political isle that want to use you to enforce a fascist christian theocracy, or the one that will constantly tell you you are privilaged and must sit down shut up, and maybe die in a class war that probably wont liberate people at all, and might make life worse.

  • Dwayne-Payton879@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    i dont really disagree with that dang dad on alot.

    what i meant by “give a man a mission” is by in leftist spaces, it is often times the reaction of any critisism that men have of feminism is often times reflected back at some cause that is beneficial to the left. Ie the clip of “you are angry at late stage capitalism” tiktok it is often times used as a way of just pacifying men with something to do, instead of addressing their arguments. ]

    “Things like universal healthcare and social safety nets have made people’s lives better in other countries, and would make people’s lives better here. Having accessible mental health care would directly help men.”

    yeah, i question this due to places like venezuela, cuba and others that have had socialist coups happen on their soil. they have had worse economic woes overtime as a result

    “Nobody on the left things that individual men have never been the victims of society - e.g. toxic masculinity. The whole point is that everyone is getting shit on right now.”

    yeah well it seems that the left is rather fixated on blaming men (specifically cis het white men) as a collective, even men who fit in the marginalized identities that they say they want to protect, rather than saying everyone is getting shit, so lets work together to fix it.

    • dil@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could see how being redirected to liberal causes could feel like dismissing your concerns. If you bring bring up an issue that isn’t being talked about, and people react with “oh. yeah we’re already working on that - wanna join?” it might feel like they’re more interested in you joining their cause than in the issue you’re raising. After all, they haven’t been talking about the issue you raised, so how can they say they’re already working on it?

      The reason is that the left is fighting for all kinds of issues, and when different groups talk about the issues they face, they start to see common themes.

      Conversations like “people hate you because you’re gay? People hate me because I’m lesbian!” end up with people working together under the same banner, despite the unique issues that each group faces. As more groups voice the issues they face, they find solidarity in existing banners. For example, being trans is completely different than being gay or lesbian (it’s not who you’re attracted to, it’s who you are), but gay/lesbian folks heard trans issues and said “lots of that stuff is what we’re already working on - wanna join?” This wasn’t dismissing trans issues, it was making both voices stronger. LGBT folks unite under the same banner, and issues for one group are issues for them all (do not try to minimize trans issues to someone that’s gay/lesbian).

      The fact is that men (specifically cis het white men) are relative newcomers in the “getting shit on” world. This is NOT minimizing the issues we face - they’re real and should be taken seriously - they’re just new (see: women got the right to vote about 100 years ago). Folks on the left offering a “mission” are not asking you to ignore your issues in favor of theirs, they’re saying “oh dang that’s messed up. Add it the list, let’s go fix this shit.” I really like that dang dad’s focus on solidarity - We fight for them. They fight for us.

      yeah well it seems that the left is rather fixated on blaming men (specifically cis het white men) as a collective, even men who fit in the marginalized identities that they say they want to protect, rather than saying everyone is getting shit, so lets work together to fix it.

      Also an understandable reaction. The left often talks about “systemic” problems - things not caused by an individual, but by how things are set up. It’s not hard to see why men as a collective would be blamed for systemic problems - after all, only men could vote up until 100 years ago. But the left is realizing that it isn’t cis het white men that were the problem, since they’re also getting shit on now too - it’s the rich. It’s always been the rich. And that’s why we’re seeing “no war but class war.”

      To be clear, there are still folks talking about men as a collective being a problem. My only advise is to mentally correct “men” to “the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of” and not take it personally.

      • a-man-from-earth@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact is that men (specifically cis het white men) are relative newcomers in the “getting shit on” world. This is NOT minimizing the issues we face - they’re real and should be taken seriously - they’re just new (see: women got the right to vote about 100 years ago).

        No, this is a misrepresentation. Most men didn’t have the right to vote either, just the landowners. If you look at when men got universal suffrage, and when women did, that’s often close together. And then we’re not even speaking of black men and women.

        But the left is realizing that it isn’t cis het white men that were the problem, since they’re also getting shit on now too - it’s the rich. It’s always been the rich. And that’s why we’re seeing “no war but class war.”

        Yes, it’s always been the rich. Not men. And where are we seeing “no war but class war”? The modern “left” appears to be in the pockets of the rich, always looking for the next minority to champion and forgetting to champion the working class.

        To be clear, there are still folks talking about men as a collective being a problem. My only advise is to mentally correct “men” to “the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of” and not take it personally.

        And I would advise to not take bigotry that lightly. We should expose that and demand that people do better.

        • dil@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, this is a misrepresentation. Most men didn’t have the right to vote either, just the landowners. If you look at when men got universal suffrage, and when women did, that’s often close together. And then we’re not even speaking of black men and women.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States

          “By 1776 at least 60 percent of adult white males were able to vote, and the proportion expanded significantly by 1787”

          So most white men could vote since the country was founded.

          Property qualifications were then steadily dropped (and never added for white men):
          “The 1828 presidential election was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states”
          “The last state to abolish property qualification was North Carolina in 1856.”

          Do you consider the civil rights movement “close together” with now? Because that’s the same amount of time it was between all men getting the right to vote and women being given the right to vote.

          And where are we seeing “no war but class war”?

          In the TikTok from OP: “(This is the tiktok in question https://www.tiktok.com/@elisse.01/video/7198671535073316142?lang=en)”

          • Dwayne-Payton879@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            while what you said was true,

            but often times on the left you see people whiping this “no war but class war” out in either this scenario, ie men having an issue with something is society, cause otherwise they call this kind of take as class reductionism

          • a-man-from-earth@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            By 1776 at least 60 percent of adult white males were able to vote

            That is unique to the US, and to white people in the US. In other countries it was quite different. For example the UK had a ten year gap between male suffrage (1918) and female suffrage (1928), as did Sweden. In my own country, the Netherlands, there was a two year gap (1917-1919).

            And I don’t do TikTok. We still don’t see that in the wider left, tho.

      • Dwayne-Payton879@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        " My only advise is to mentally correct “men” to “the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of” and not take it personally."

        yeah except they arent saying this, they are saying men, and assigning those tropes to men? also how are we supposed to not take it negatively when they are the ones who control the converstion, on mens issues?

        • dil@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cause that’s all they are - tropes. stereotypes. They’re the same stereotypes that we’re recognizing as harmful expectations. When we say “men are expected to be X” that’s the same thing - the reason we’re expected to be X is because “you need to be X or you’re not a real man.”

          We feel the ways in which society’s stereotype of men hurt us, and those same expectations cause harm to other folks as well. It’s fair for folks to complain about that, but it’s complaining about the stereotypes.

          The left wants to change toxic gender roles, just like we do. Do you have better ideas for actually getting things to change that doesn’t involve the left? We can complain about society all day long, but actually changing it requires work. The door is open for you to join the fight and take part in the conversation - it just requires solidarity and a willingness to fight for others too.

          • vlakas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I also think it’s relevant to this discussion that the right to vote of men in the past was predicated on mandatory military service. Women have never had to do this.

            If I had a choice between giving uo my right to vote and being forced to go die in a trench in WWI, I would seriously consider giving up my vote. I am grateful to be alive today instead of 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago when the US last drafted men against their will.

            But even today, people still by and large believe that it is men’s natural duty to be sent to war, while women are seen as having no responsibilities.

            I don’t think we should disenfranchise anyone, but recognise that forced conscription is just as great an injustice to men as disenfranchisement was to women (and black or non-landowning men), if not greater.

            Forcing innocent men into harm’s way should be confined to the past and recognised for the barbaric practice that it is. Sadly that will not happen anytime soon, seeing how most people don’t even see it as injustice.

            This is something feminists usually respond to with “but men start all the wars; therefore women shouldn’t have to fight them,” without realising it caring that only a tiny group of men make these choices; the millions of [usually working class] men who died never got a say in any of it. Feminism is not fighting to end conscription because it doesn’t affect women.