99
Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
99 points (90.9% liked)
Men's Liberation
1838 readers
7 users here now
This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.
Rules
Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people
Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.
Be productive
Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.
Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:
- Build upon the OP
- Discuss concepts rather than semantics
- No low effort comments
- No personal attacks
Assume good faith
Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.
No bigotry
Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.
No brigading
Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.
Recommended Reading
- The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, And Love by bell hooks
- Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements by Michael Messner
Related Communities
!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You seem to not be very familiar with feminism. Most obvious one is that feminism wants to give man and women a choice when it comes to their role in society. Like most liberal "leftist" movement it's about empowering the individual to be able to live a life that makes them happy by overcoming societal structures.
I don't know where you live to have such a narrow definition of it. And it certainly is true for some feminist groups. But feminism is a diverse movement. And some of them are definitely not open to men.
When you can read that the heterosexual couple must end because it's based on domination and it enforces patriarchy, at best it's a poor choice of words.
I didn't give you a definition of feminism to beginn with, so not sure what you are talking about. I gave you an example of an aspect of feminism that clearly benefits men.
Sure, and some feminist believe that all piv sex is rape and than some others that trans-women are not women. Like you said, feminism is diverse and there are fringe opinions and genuine crazy people. But don't you think it's rather biased to define the whole movement by the most fringe elements of it?
Do you think that is a popular opinion with people considering themselves feminist or do you think it's rather radical extreme position hold by a few and refuted by the majority?
I don't know the sociology of the people who consider themselves feminists. I read and talk quite some with people, women in fact, who are activists. A published article that defend or promote feminist is activist by definition.
I've never seen a moderate feminist article. Would you have one that I can read?
Notice that I didn't say every feminist was extremist. Some are obviously more moderate than others. But by its nature, feminism is radical. The problem is that men are generally considered allies at best. They're not included. They're often excluded.
If some feminists include men, I'll very gladly learn about them, because I've never have before. And I consider myself informed.
You are not. There is a long tradition of feminist thought that makes very clear that feminism is inclusive of men. What's more, feminism very explicitly advocates for the betterment of men in the form of freeing them from oppressive gender roles. I suggest you check out works like Feminism Is for Everybody by bell hooks for an introduction into this pillar of feminism.
I'm curious where you live, since your experience is rather wildly different then mine.
What is a moderate feminism for you? Need to know before I go searching.
Also I'm curious what being included means for you - is considering men allies including them? What would satisfy for you the criteria of men being included?
These are the wrong questions. The question is how do men and women love each other after metoo? That is the question Andrew tate and the fascists are answering, in a reactionary way.
And Barby (the movie) is a good example of the feminist stance on this: feminists are basically saying "I don't want to be your doll, fuck off, dont try to love me". And while the first part is perfectly reasonable and sound, the second part is missing the point. And I realise here that it's not just me that are abandoned but also women here.
The feminist stance is understandable I guess: they don't want men to tell them what to be, so they won't tell men what to be either. But that's missing the point, the question that's being asked: how do men and women love eachother after metoo?
People want models, both to understand what to aim for, and to have something to dream about. There are strong women models now all over movies and games. But men are still the old one, and there's nothing but the old philosophy to answer the question of how do men and women love eachother after metoo. Because feminists abandoned this question.
And it cannot be either men or women to answer it. It must be discussed and agreed. Because women must like what men will be, and men must accept what women want. There is as much work to do on women than there is on men.
Final point: the answer cannot be a negative one. It cannot be "don't be a dick". Because after metoo most reasonable men understand that. The question is, if we're not to be dicks, what will we be? And I'm talking about seduction and romantic relationships here. The question the far right is answering. The question that matter when it comes to men and women relationships. Because no one cares if you want to be an astronaut or a fireman.
It's very concerning that you don't understand that you've just made an overall feminist argument.
This is most certainly not true.
The far right is answering with "let's just be dicks"?
Is this a rethorical question?
Sure we can switch the topic.
What the hell are you talking about? That has nothing to do with feminism and I struggle to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that after metoo women don't want to be loved anymore. Women don't want to be raped, harassed and then dismissed when they try to get help. That was the point of metoo.
Respecting each other, here I gave you the answer.
There are tons of positive role models for men out there that fit feminist bills. From Argagorn in LOTR to Aang in Avatar, if you are interested I can keep on going.
Yeah, because as I said metoo was about not being raped, harrassed and not dismissed - some rather basic things for a relationship. What answers do you exactly need?
But that is an individual question. There is no answer for everyone besides - respect others and their boundaries and then anything goes. There is no one archetype of men that all women find attractive and never was.
You just misunderstood the answer. Again it's not about not being a dick, no one cares. It's about not raping, harassing and than dismissing women. And the answer the left is giving: consent. Make sure the other side is into what ever is going on and than you are free to do what ever you two want.
So we're back at square one: you don't understand, and either you don't care or you don't see the problem.
I guess you're left blaming men and social networks for turning young men mysoginistic fascists.
Sure, if pushback and arguments is not understanding and not caring in your book. You could also try to explain your opinion, if you believe I misunderstood you. That's up to you buddy.
That is not my opinion at all. Except that social media is defenetly playing a role in spreading populist idea. But there is also an underlying reason for those ideas to become popular in the first place.
You wrote it yourself, you don't understand what I'm talking about eventhough I explained at length. It's not up to me. I explained at length already.
I understand the statistics the article is talking about. And I think I understand why. If you want to understand, you'll need to make the effort.
No, I wrote that I pushed back and made arguments. It's your personal assessment, that I didn't get your point. If you were genuinely interested in a conversation - you would try to understand my point and where the misunderstanding might be.
And other people have other opinions on why and discuss those opinions. That's why we are here. You can try making an effort to be understood and try to understand others or just be upset why nobody agrees with you.
For example you wrote:
Wich is clearly misunderstanding of my opinion. So I just corrected you. It's not that hard.
You only answered one sentence in my whole comment and ignored the meaning of everything else. That's what I mean. You even started with saying that I was sidetracking the conversation when I was actually refocusing it.
If you want to make this an actual discussion, write your point instead of making it a quote ping pong.
Sure, if you are interested in my personal opinion I will gladly share. Just to be sure we are on the same page: we are talking about why the new right and conservatives are able to reach young men and where and why progressives fail to do so? Agree or did I miss something?
Yes.
We live in a time where everything is changing rapidly, which includes gender roles in society. Those stayed rather stable over longer periods of time, but industrialization and two consecutive world wars changed western societies rather drastically. Women became rather completely independent of men in economical aspects and simultaneously pushed for more rights and participation. But this also changed the relationship dynamic and what women seek in a relationship. While previous generation could look at their parents for role models, newer generation had to come up with their own. At the same time over the last 20 years people (in the west) started to grow up in a less certain and secure world. While at the same time internet arrived and changed a lot of ways we interact with other people, while at the same time providing populist with a perfect tool to reach their audience.
So to put it together, we live in a completely different and much more complex world form previous generations. It's not just gender roles people are struggling with. And that is always a perfect time for populist to come around the corner and provide simple solutions. So populist and conman took on themself to sell the old romantic story of better times long gone by (conveniently their audience wasn't alive back than, so they don't know) just with modern tools. And easy answers that are sold in an entertaining way will always find buyers. Especially since it's pushed by algorithms right down peoples throats.
Populism works since Caesar, and there wasn't Internet back then... Napoléon? Hitler and Mussolini? Do you know how it went in antic democratic Athen? Populism goes with democracy. Internet has nothing to do with it.
The society is more complex than ever? I read it at least twice: in a XVth century book, and in an antiquity one.
But this is beside the subject. You've said nothing here to explain why the reactionaries (the alt right, the far right, populism) are benefiting from this more than the left. Are you saying that the left can't win? Are you saying that we should shut down Internet?
You need to go farther in your analysis. There always were political forces opposing each other. The progressists were wining for women until recently. Why is it changing when young are so much more informed and educated than people were 50 years ago?
Populism benefits from new media since it offers easy solutions. While at same time it takes time for society to develop new rules and individuals to learn to handle new media. More complex ideas also need more time to be translated in a way relatable and entertaining to new audience.
Why men are seemingly more succeptable to the rightwing propaganda than women? Maybe because rightwing ideology has rather little to offer women even on populist level.
But than again you don't seem to be interested in engaging with my arguments. So I will stop waisting my time.
What is this argument? I'm trying to understand. Here you're not giving an argument though, merely an analysis. You don't say anything about what's possible about the problem. Except maybe explaining more and better then?
Men have nothing to win out of the Conservative ideology btw. It's very harmful to them. Both physically and psychologically. But people don't choose an ideology after a cost/benefit analysis anyway.
Last time: rightwing populism offers easy solutions to complex problems of modern world ( like for example gender: conservatives say there are two and don't bother thinking more about that topic). Modern media allows for easy spread of populism ( algorithms pushing media that creates engagement and creating information bubbles). The right wing populism offers men a clear role and place in society. Right wing populism also offers a clear role for women in society, but it's almost as bad as a deal as immigrants get. Progressive and feminism also offers solutions to modern problem, but they are more complex. ( For example a more complex understanding of what gender ist). Complex ideas are more difficult to sell.
If you feel like engaging with my analysis/argument/greating card what ever you call it, you are welcome otherwise have a nice day.
Now that's where we disagree, unless there are things you didn't say: progressives and feminism don't offer solutions to modern problems IMO.
And that's what I'm basically saying and asking you from the beginning. If there are solutions proposed, what are they?
Dude I literally gave you an example. I obviously can't retell you whole feminist and other progressive theories and what they offer as solutions to each one of the problems we are facing in moder world.
My example was gender issues:
conservatives - there are two and don't think more about it, you feel like you don't fit, we teach to ignore feelings anyway.
progressive - offer a complex ever evolving understanding of gender as combination of culture and biology.
And that's true for a lot of topics.
One is easily digestible the other takes time to understand.
I understand this very well, but that's not my question. This is in fact irrelevant to the subject here. I'm not asking you about the rights minorities should get. I'm asking you about the cis-heterosexual men and women.
I'm not asking about theoretical or abstract things. I'm asking a simple question.
If your answer is that it is too complex, then you now know what the problem is. And that's exactly the problem I'm referring to.
If you can't understand that, then the problem doesn't come from the people who don't understand your complex theories.
Until you realize that you are not asking simple questions, you will never understand why simple answers don't work. The answer will always be complex, so it comes down to people being able to explain complex concepts in an entertaining and understandable manner, where we come back to the point I was making the whole time.
At least you almost understood me at the end. It's something.
Thank you for proving my point: I ask a simple question, and you hide behind arrogance and disdain, abandoning me with no answer. This is precisely what I was saying.
Sure, everyone is free to chose to be ignorant. Nothing I can do about it. But it's sure funny that after days talking with me - that is your take away.
You know what's funny? I can say exactly the same about you. I think you forgot what the conversation was even about.
If you feel like it sure. But than again I spend quite some time trying to explain my point and you spend that time not engaging with what I say. You think you are asking a simple question and that progressives have nothing to offer as a solution. But when people try to explain to you that it's not that simple and progressives have indeed solutions to offer, but those are complex - you just ignore everything.
But than what are you doing here if you think progressives have nothing to offer for men? Seems like you are wasting your time here.
You are twisting my words. I understand what you're saying. But you refuse to understand what I am saying. Just because I don't say "yes you are right and I am wrong" doesn't mean I don't understand you. You're repeating yourself since the beginning.
But the best: you repeat ad nauseam how the solutions exist but are complex, yet you refuse to even try to give the beginning of one to the question I ask. With all the messages spent repeating how complex it is, you could at least have the beginning of something tangible.
I didn't say you don't understand, I said you don't engage. Thanks for illustrating.
Ok, stay blind if you will. There's no problem. We will never know why men are turning fascist and mysogyne I guess.
You want to shine a light and help me out of blindness by pointing out where you disagree?
I disagree when you say that people should help themselves.
Where do I say that?