I really don’t like that the graphs aren’t across the same period of time.
I didn’t notice until you pointed it out. Because why wouldn’t they be??
Because there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Presumably they are starting wherever the trend “started”, although I’d like to see what it was doing before that to see if this is an unusual trend or not
Because gaps in data are a thing? I dunno, it doesn’t really seem to change the story or the outcome. Your concerns seem overblown.
Then attention should be drawn to the fact that the timelines are different. The data is presented in a misleading way and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Axes should remain the same with the lines missing at parts where there are missing data. This makes it clear
deleted by creator
That’s funny, because that’s exactly what they did.
I’m guessing the data sets they used were collected at different start times and they didn’t want to truncate it
yes thats probably why but then maybe they should’ve left a white space instead
Oh boy liberal vs conservative, what a wide variety of political opinion allowed for by the “financial times”
I don’t think they use the definition of liberal that you think they’re using.
They’re not, this is the traditional polling version of liberal vs. conservative — the one that everyone who is not terminally online uses and can understand as it has been around for over a century.
It wouldn’t make sense to ask people are you conservative or conservative, would it?
Exactly. And these terms have been used in both academic and general public forums for a very long time. It’s such a weird thing to get hung up on.
They’re not, this is the traditional polling version of liberal vs. conservative — the one that everyone who is not terminally online uses
How do you describe the right wing ideology of liberalism in a not confusing way without rejecting liberalism=left as a definition?
Easy, I use political science terms and traditional analysis instead of terminally online ones. The important thing to remember is that liberal vs. conservative is an ideological midpoint for the discourse being discussed and/or measured. You can apply this to any group or discourse — in the OP it’s being applied to the whole of a nation’s body politic. However, you can just as easily apply such a division to only self-described leftists — thus creating a conservative subgroup who still exist well to the left side of the entire population, but are to the right of the other ideological half of the spectrum of this subgroup.
There isn’t an objective midpoint in ideology that applies across political systems and time. Which is good, because the overall trend throughout history is leftward and a relative system is able to both capture that as well as provide descriptive value for a given measurement period.
Easy, I use political science terms and traditional analysis
I literally use “liberal” to mean liberal capitalist because I read political economics books. When you say “political science” and “traditional analysis” you are referring to something that is a lot less universal than you think it is.
Also like how do you talk about liberalism and neoliberalism in a non confusing way while also claiming liberalism is left? You didn’t answer my question you just took a swipe.
The important thing to remember is that liberal vs. conservative is an ideological midpoint for the discourse being discussed and/or measured
Except this is a very narrow overton window(more like an arrow slit) and if you limit your discussion to it you miss a lot of context and analysis.
Which is good, because the overall trend throughout history is leftward and a relative system is able to both capture that as well as provide descriptive value for a given measurement period.
This is kinda unfalsifiable
Also like how do you talk about liberalism and neoliberalism in a non confusing way while also claiming liberalism is left?You make it clear with your audience that you’re talking about the “liberal” in the economic sense and not “liberal” in the philosophical sense. From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative), and as the person previously mentioned, in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx’s philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted), just like there are liberal conservatives (believe in small/efficient State but individual freedoms) and conservative conservatives (social conservatives).
You make it clear with your audience that you’re talking about the “liberal” in the economic sense and not “liberal” in the philosophical sense.
Liberalism as a philosophy is connected to the economic structure? Are you referring to a different philosophy and calling it liberal?
From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative)
Okay, yes, you are. Liberalism is literally the status quo.
in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx’s philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted)
You literally can’t be a marxist and take Marx as dogma. Marxism is a process based ideology.
the right wing ideology of liberalism
WTF do you think “liberalism” means? It’s the opposite of authoritarianism, it’s not really left or right.
Liberalism is individualist above all in my mind. What advances your personal freedom is the best thing for everyone. Neoliberalism is a post-Keynesian consensus that believes this is most achievable through equal opportunity in the free market.
I also like Phil Ochs definition of liberal from the 60s, "ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally.
Liberalism is an economic system.
OK, that’s a new one to me. Know that when you use the word in most contexts that’s not what people think you mean by it!
Well, most people have been miseducated on politics and the economy in the United States.
Also, outside of opinion pieces, the FT tends to be fairly central, as it’s generally purchased by people who want information to make financial decisions with.
FT is pretty solid when it comes to data analysis like this. The point is to show a specific trend not to encompass all the data in the sources.
I think they understood “liberal” to mean “classical liberal” which obviously would have the issue they point out. But FT seems to be using “liberal” to mean “progressive” or something like that.
Right and righter.
What other social ideology is there?
Most of these are political ideologies. I asked for social ideologies.
It’s clear what liberal and conservative means here.
They’re the same thing. Politics are simply a manifestation of a persons social values.
Agree to disagree. Liberal in this context means not forcing women to have children, not suppressing LGBTQ community, and not discriminating people based on their race, gender, or sexuality.
Reserve this ‘right and righter’ snark for some other time, when it’s applicable.
Yes, these graphs don’t many any sense other than generating clicks.
I don’t know about beautiful data. That’s scary data :/
It’s only beautiful in that is well visualized. The data itself is scary.
The graps don’t represent the same amount of time while they are there for comparison. I wouldn’t call that well visualized.
South Korea is expanded, which reduces the appearance of disparity. Germany has an extra 10 years. But despite those issues the data is still compelling.
Do you know a community that fits?
Nah, here is fine, the data is presented beautifully.
Except the time frame is shifted for each graph
+1 this. This community isn’t about agreeing with the data, it’s about how it’s presented
No no, that’s not what I meant. I wasn’t trying to have a go at you. It fits here perfectly. I was just upset at the trend it was showing :\
Is this American liberal or real liberal?
It’s Burgerland liberal, which is center-left to right. Burgerland conservative is right to fash.
Or American conservative or real conservative
It’s relative to the nationstate’s domestic policies in question. And just a heads up, I know when people make statements like this it just reveals a lack of understanding regarding foreign countries’ domestic politics. However, it’s also important to point out that the meme itself is incredibly ethnocentric and is fundamentally based on a dismissal of the validity of political discourse outside Western Europe and North America. You don’t mean to be racist, right?
This “meme” is not ethnocentric. Liberalism has a definition. The meaning became lost to Americans thanks to two red scares and a cold war. So now you have centrists like Bernie Sanders calling themselves socialist, which is absolutely not true.
Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism, he’s a socialist working in a fucked over Overton window that means the best policies he can argue for would fall under social democracy at best.
Which, to be very clear, makes him a raging commie by American political standards.
The only people who argue he’s a capitalist are people that think socialism is when poor.
Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism
No, he believes in the eradication of “über” capitalism, as his new book states: It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. He is a There Is No Alternative, Nordic model welfare capitalist. He never has and never will call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
He specifically describes himself as a democratic socialist instead of a social democrat but I also haven’t read the book so feel free to quote an excerpt from it saying he thinks the capitalist model is the only viable one.
During Sander’s 2020 presidential campaign he called for corporate accountability reform which would have given workers the ability to elect a portion of the board of directors for the corporation they work for.
That is a feature of the Nordic model—as I said above—and is still capitalism: Worker representation on corporate boards of directors
I’m about as far-left as they come. I want to understand.
What would it mean in terms of policy to “call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production”? Would you prefer something closer to the Meidner Plan? Because that’s further left than Bernie’s plan but could also be considered part of the “Nordic Model”.
As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.
Socialism can develop differently in different countries. As such I believe that it’s better to engage in international solidarity, rather than nit pick differences.
But, I’m open to being wrong.
As a Swede, what he’s been advocating for doesn’t sound like the nordic model to me.
Liberalism actually has a lot of definitions. It is a classical philosophical concept, a modern political philosophical concept, a term to describe a lower value of risk aversion, a term to mean supplied in abundance, and (here) a political science term used to describe an entire half of a relative political spectrum whose center point is determined by the specific body politic being measured. So, big shooter, no you are mistaken at a very basic level. All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system. And, just to raise your level of education on the subject, you know what? Even within those subgroups, there is a liberal and conservative divide based on the relative ideology of the subgroup. And fun fact, you can yet still divide those subgroups of subgroups — this is a large part of how the phenomenon of group polarization happens.
All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system.
See, here we have an Overton window that only allows for liberalism, as if socialism doesn’t exist. As if the political spectrum only goes from center-left to right, erasing the left altogether. The left is erased because Burgerland purged them.
“American” is hardly an ethnicity (except maybe if you are referring to native Americans of course), so this has nothing to do with racism. Secondly I assume the author of the comment is refering to the simple fact that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have drastically different connotations in Europe and the US.
They also have drastically different connotations in America depending on whether the user can read a book.
I think it’s a higher bar of actually reading one. Only around 20% of Americans read a book, any book, within the ages 18-29.
deleted by creator
not surprising. the american right is specifically catered to address male grievances.
not fix these grievances mind you, but exploit them
This data is the World world, not just “America world”.
Also, if men are going right, then the left needs to step up their offering.
“When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
While this is true, it’s also true that pendulum swings can go further in the opposite direction than equality.
While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film, at the end when things are going back to the seemingly good way, the men in Barbieland ask if they can have a seat on the supreme court and are told no, which is then explained as Barbieland being a mirror to the real world such that as there’s increased equality in the real world then equality for men in the mirror would increase.
Apparently the writers weren’t familiar with the fact there’s four women on the supreme court right now and a woman has been on the court since 1981 (around twice as close to the creation of Barbie than to the present day).
Even in the context of its justifiably imbalanced equality it failed to be proportionally imbalanced.
There’s interesting research around how the privileged underestimate the degree to which the good things that happen to them are because of privilege, but that at the same time the underprivileged overestimate how often the bad things which happen are because of bias. In theory both are ego-preserving adaptations. But it also means that either side is going to have a difficult time correctly identifying equality from their relative subjective perspectives.
That’s nice and all but you if you want to bump up your membership numbers, you’re gonna need to find a way to appeal to them.
Correct. Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Edit: A benefit to one group does not mean a detriment to others. This is not a zero sum game.
The funny thing is that the left could offer so many things for men:
- address mental health issues
- paternal leave / support for fatherhood
- Less dangerous work
- rehabilitation in prisons
- a free lamborghini
- address homelessness
All of which are mostly men issues.
Is it really worse? Or does it just hurt your feels when women can decide something on their own?
Why not both? Benefit to women, and benefit to men.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
You’re not wrong, but the wage gap? Not going to close if we give everyone a raise. It would be the same wage gap.
The gender pay gap is insignificant and inconsequential compared to the income differences between working and owning classes. Also, much of the pay gap is due to men culturally tending to not have the option of escaping the grindset. “Honey I’m going to quit my job and do something that doesn’t alienate me, yes it’s going to pay less” is not something universally accepted by wives.
The wage gap is a myth.
I’m pretty sure that by this point most reasonable people have realized that the wage gap is a myth, so that’s probably not your best example.
Name one thing thats gotten better for men in 50 years.
being gay is more accepted. there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings, expressing yourself in fashion/makeup, joining in traditionally feminine careers like
nursing/teaching (both of which have exploded in the past 50 years). just to name a fewthey also haven’t used the draft in 50 yearsedit: striked through things are either factually incorrect (nursing) or more nuanced than my original comment implied (military draft)
being gay is more accepted.
Fair. A win for all.
there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings
Not the wider experience. Men are still stigmatised for expressing themselves. Example: how often do men get to be emotionally vulnerable in a public setting compared to women?
joining in traditionally feminine careers like nursing/teaching
This is flat out wrong, it’s actually getting worse.
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/gender-equality-and-through-teaching-profession
Sex ratios in healthcare occupations: population based study.
they also haven’t used the draft in 50 years
That’s because there are enough men who are financially destitute, who sell their lives into the military.
Don’t need a draft when there is enough blood money going around.
The fact that I can’t wear a skirt in public without facing backlash, but a woman wearing pants is seen as normal makes me feel like there is still a lot of progress we have to make. I guess it’s equivalent would be women going topless casually. I really hate conservative/puritan values.
Here’s 3.
- Addressing men’s mental health. Normalizing therapy and talking about issues.
- Promoting ideals and examples of healthy intimate relationships: communication, setting boundaries, etc.
- Moving a way from the insecure, performative, fucked up version of “masculinity” – e.g. “I can’t wear pink, play with dolls with my kid, or bake because those things are feminine”.
Yeah, fuck men who want to wear blue and play with cars. Being a man isn’t allowed. Unless you accept feminization, you’re the enemy. No wonder men choose to vote for the bad guys, when the “good” side demand that they play a role as weak.
Why do things need to get better for men? Things have been pretty excellent for men for a very very long time.
- high suicide rate
- male loneliness has always been terrible and it’s on the rise
- 19 out of 20 deaths at the work place are men
- most likely to have poor work-life balance
- most likely to be imprisoned
- most likely to be homeless
- most likely to NOT get custody of the kids they love
Pretty excellent, aye? These men just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Because if everyone only voted for the things that benefit them, then it’s possible to end up in a situation that’s worse for everybody. If the majorities repeatedly votes for a small benefit to themselves and a large detriment to everyone else, this is basically guaranteed to happen. This is also why voting out of spite is a bad idea.
Example: Let’s examine a population consisting of 60% white people and 60% Christians, uncorrelated (so 36% white Christians, 24% nonwhite Christians, 24% white non-Christians, and 16% nonwhite non-Christians). This population is making two votes: one that will be Very Bad for nonwhites, and one that will be Very Bad for non-Christians, with a small benefit to white people or Christians respectively. Both will pass, which results in:
-
36% of the population (white Christians) gets two small benefits
-
48% of the population (white non-Christians and nonwhite Christians combined) gets a small benefit and something Very Bad for them
-
16% of the population (nonwhite non-Christians) gets two Very Bad results passed against them
So the overall result is negative for 64% of the population, despite everyone voting for their interests and everyone voting! This is because the legislation was more bad for the minority than it was good for the majority.
Bonus: I believe you can use this to prove that you can use a sequence of legislation to get into literally any position you want if everyone votes strictly for things that help them, and I saw a good YT video on that topic, but I can’t find it right now.
If the majorities repeatedly votes for … a large detriment to everyone else
I never argued for this. It is possible to vote in a commensalistic manner.
Only if the appropriate legislation is available to vote on. If the only legislation available is something that hurts you a little and helps someone else a lot, it may be in society’s best interest to vote for it. If you were in a culture that encouraged that, your actions would be repaid by others doing the same, eventually securing large gains for everyone. This is the opposite of my example above, but the math works out the same.
Essentially, there are situations in which the logical choice is to vote for something that hurts you, or to not vote for something that helps you. (Zero-sum-like situations are especially likely to have this occur.) Over a long period of time, what matters is how much each bill helps society overall, not how much it helps you in particular. (Yes, this stops working if the other groups won’t do the same for you.)
-
So we should just let ‘minorities’ suffer? The term appeasement comes to mind, as I don’t know what else you could be advocating here.
Why not both? Benefit to minorities and benefit to majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Let me get this straight, if you have food to survive, and someone else who doesn’t have food wants some food, not even your food, just some food, you need more food before they get any at all?
Did … did you even read my post? What is going on?
Let me re-write it using your analogy.
Why not both? Food for minorities and food for majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Nice quote. Won’t win over men who are shifting Right because of consistent targeted alienation in involvement from the Left
If other people having rights is “targeted alienation”, then what should we call denying those people rights based on things they can’t control? Because that sounds like actual targeted alienation.
You’re straw manning here, that’s not what he said at all.
He’s referring to the knee jerk lesser treatment of men, because their men, because some other men have done bad shit. If you’re constantly grouped in with the worst of a group just for existing, of course you get sucked into that group.
Hard to Strawman, a Slippery Slope. I was merely pointing out it’s a Slippery Slope without whipping out my Fallacies.
Read my comment again, slowly. What does “alienation in involvement” mean?
If uplifting groups of oppressed people to an equal standard is alienating to you, then you are falling into the tolerance paradox, and you should probably stop that.
This “data” is hilarious. You should read the article it’s attached to. They throw these charts up and then just use 4 or 5 anecdotes to take a victory lap for conservatism.
deleted by creator
Much like the left caters to women and minorities… good point.
Here in South Korea - Both the liberal and conservative party are very conservative. It wasn’t until 10-15 years ago that women could even be the “leader” of the house. So the delta in conservative/liberal is more likely to do with economic/war policies with the North than much else (since men get conscripted, and North policies is one of the key differentiators between the 2 parties)
Wouldn’t it be men making the decision on conscription policies though? A more liberal / less sexist government would be more likely to bin that.
The key difference I tend to see between men and women’s issues is that men’s issues are often caused by other men in power. Feminism, ironically enough, can also help with a lot of problems disenfranchised men have.
Sorry I’m rambling a bit.
Sooooo yes, everything you said is correct, but there’s a missing piece of context: binning the military would mean binning South Korea as we know it, so nobody (liberal or conservative) is in favor of binning it. The lines are much more murky.
Binning a sexist conscription system is not anything close to “binning the military”
It very literally is, in South Korea’s case.
How so?
Beginning to conscript women as well as men does not equate to abolishing the military, or am I missing something?
They could conscript women, but you can imagine how hard it would be for that legislation to pass.
What? Do you want half the army shopping for new shoes to wear in the trenches while the other half has to wait for them at the shopping mall fountain?
Were you trying to be funny, or is that your genuine understanding of women in the millitary?
Men are not a monolith.
South Korea also has one of the biggest anti-feminism movements in the world. They just eliminated the gender ministry and rolled back protections for women. Not coincidentally, South Korea is Jordan Peterson’s biggest audience outside the US.
The translation of “gender ministry” is completely misleading, I don’t know why they made it that in English because that’s not what it is. In Korean it’s “여성가족부” which means “Woman’s family department”
right. Korean politics seem to come down to “aid vs embargo”. moon jae in was on the aid side, right? I haven’t followed the current prez, what’s their deal?
President Yoon is a fascist that got into power by targeting women and disabled people.
shcoking, women arent a fan en masse of being ‘tradwifes’ to tate blowhards
This data is poorly presented and unclear. It may well have some really useful insights, but it’s definitely not beautiful.
This data is anything but beautiful. Its horrendously laid out. Not intuitive in the slightest.
Oh good, I’m better than the average man in something.
This is an opinion piece they are really really reaching with.
Conservatives have been running this for a few days now but it just doesn’t add up. At least for the US it flies in the face of all published polling, including what they claim as sources. Unless you look at Gen Z men skewing independent and take that as them becoming more conservative because you only see the political spectrum as D/I/M.
But that’s not what being an independent means. It isn’t a party. It’s literally not having a party.
I forgot to add, there’s also the Roe effect. The overturning of Roe has pushed women left in the US.
Until there’s a liberal space for men, it’s going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives. There, they will be indoctrinated by weird, stupid conservative bullshit that has nothing to do with any of this.
The left is the only place that is safe to open up as a man.
The right is only safe if you fit a very specific definition of manliness, one that is unrealistic. However that illusion sends millions of the gullible and impressionable chasing after an unobtainable standard.
On the far-right you’ll get punched if you like making caramel and baking cakes. The close right just calls you a slur instead.
There are few things more alienating to the wide range of male expression than the right wing.
I grew up as a conservative and was never accepted. Opening up, being emotionally vulnerable, expressing “feminine” (ie non traditional) interests: every time it lost me any sort of male friendship. I was excluded, mocked and called homophobic slurs.
I’m a cisgender straight white man but because I was a square peg to their traditional round hole I was an outcast.
The right is the cause of male depression and loneliness. It enforces the gender norms that make men feel they have to be a rock, provide for family, die for their country, shut up about their feelings.
The only safe place for men to open up is on the left.
Gangs are inclusive and welcoming even if they haze you and commit crimes. People who feel left out gravitate toward unconventional solutions to conventional problems.
deleted by creator
I grant that my statement wasn’t particularly nuanced, but I firmly believe it is generally accurate for the overwhelming majority of the male population.
The overwhelming majority of all the right-wing men I’ve ever met have been a thousand times more miserable, angry, and bottled up than their left counterparts. The right wing inherently fosters that kind of existence with its rigidity, judgment, paranoia, and aggression.
Starting by removing the association between masculinity and being a bigot by changing male social behavior seems to be the logical first step. The change absolutely has to come from within. Starting by not tolerating it when your buddies say bigoted shit seems insignificant but is a huge step in the positive direction, and every small change counts.
Definitely!
There isn’t? Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.
What are you missing?
So you don’t think there are any issues with how men are treated on the left?
As progressive as the left can be, men have been left behind and are still often expected to ‘just be a man’, while dealing with double standards and sometimes being treated like they’re inherently bad.
Edit: Copying what vzq has said to me for visibility, as this is the exact problem. Do I sound like the angry toddler in this discussion?
“I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.” You are being treated based on how act. You act like a spoiled toddler that thinks he’s owed some consideration by strangers.
I believe these issues exist in some places in the world like the usa.
Personally as a cis man i dont experience these issues at all. I am more radical left leaning then my sisters.
The right just appear like some intolerant macho cult. They are the last people i would feel safe.
It has to be set though I recognize many fellow men do exhibit this weird macho psychology as well as laziness and illusion that they somehow know me or what i want. I never consider that to have political grounds.
If i have a choice to interact with either sex i am Biased to chose the women because i feel like there actually perceive and speak to me as individual rather then pretending i am their best friend cardboard cutout.
In my experience women are more honest as sales people and more helpfull as a frontdesk clerk. This is bias and exceptions exist. I myself am an exceptions. Statistical perception though…
I haven’t heard another guy talk about other dudes assuming you are just like them/same politics etc, but its something I’ve experienced a lot. I often have to break the news I’m not a safe space for whatever bs they are spewing.
deleted by creator
No, I honestly do not. I do my level best to treat everyone as a person and when I mess up I apologize and try and do better. That works pretty well.
If you are treated like you are inherently bad, you may be not as good as you think you are.
Edit: nice edit man. Totally not what an angry toddler would do.
If you are treated like you are inherently bad, you may be not as good as you think you are.
Ah, blame the victim. Men get treated a certain way so it must be their fault…
There’s no victim here. Just a guy with “feelings”.
Ahh, its you. You’re the problem.
Thanks for proving their point lol
You just flipped blame on the individual without even attempting to understand anything about them.
I know what they type. They are responsible for that at least, aren’t they?
Thanks for proving my point, what have I said that’s bad?
I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.
You’ve tried to tell me that I do act like that, despite the fact you have absolutely nothing to back that up… The exact problem.
I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.
You are being treated based on how act. You act like a spoiled toddler that thinks he’s owed some consideration by strangers.
Again, just disregarding how men feel, where does that get us?
I absolutely do not act in the way that men are accused of, but blanket statements about “MeN BaD” are so frequent and widely accepted, and it’s just ignored or even praised.
Can you give a more precise example? I hope you do not mean individuals who write stuff online. In what way do left oriented organisations treat all men like they are bad?
How exactly are men treated by the left? Perhaps you can give some examples so people understand what your problem is.
Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.
That is true, absolutely. And one must not diminish the situation of women under the patriarchy by any means.
Unfortunately, the patriarchy damages all of us in different ways. That does not contradict feminism but, in my estimation, completes the view of the patriarchy, it’s effects, and how we perpetuate it generation after generation. I think if we wish to be anti-sexist and pro-feminist and ever hope to abolish the patriarchy, we must understand it as fully as possible.
If you care to explore the topic further, “The Will to Change” by Bell Hooks might be worth a read.
What is a liberal space for men? That means nothing.
Liberal, as in, believing in liberty. Freedom. How many mens spaces do you know of, where a man is completely free to open up, with full liberty and freedom from immediate consequences, about feelings they may have inside of them?
There’s actually not a lot. It’s a reflection of masculine indoctrination, where men in many places are made to feel like they almost need to be ready to become a soldier at any moment. Guarded, careful. It’s no good, unless your country is actually at war.
Are you implying liberal spaces deal with more toxic masculinity? Because that’s sounds more like conservative spaces to me. In my experience men are much more welcome to be vulnerable and talk about their feelings in liberal spaces. If you can’t find liberal spaces “where a man is completely free to open up, with full liberty and freedom from immediate consequences” I can’t help but wonder if perhaps you and your options are the intolerant ones. Tolerance can not support intolerance and liberal spaces can and should reject intolerance.
I’ve certainly seen my share of crappy behavior (up and including sexual assault unfortunately) in supposedly liberal and leftist spaces.
I don’t compare because I don’t hang out with conservatives , but every instance is one too many.
No, it is specifically illiberal spaces that encourage more toxic masculinity, in a bit of a cycle. While the space itself may be extremely liberal and rules-free, a local culture can take over and enforce those same toxic norms in place of any set of rules. And frequently does. While the space may be ostensibly liberal, in effect it is not, due to the behavior of its community.
This is the majority of mens spaces, unfortunately. Online anyway.
Only place I feel that way is at a gay bar. But I’m gay and live in Texas. I don’t think I’m the reason for the spike.
Lemmy is pretty good, for the most part. Depends which community of course, decentralized and only loosely controlled and all.
This thread proves the opposite.
Lemmy is a big place. You think anywhere online is going to be perfect like your picture of heaven or something? Get real.
That has nothing to do with spaces. It’s toxic masculinity. And you combat that by being the change you want to see.
Even if there was a space like that, toxic masculinity would ruin it if it wasn’t addressed. But you might just be looking for group therapy.
Men will blame anything else for their problems before ever admitting that toxic masculinity might be the cause of their problems
So, spaces that encourage toxic masculinity do exist, and they are fully aware of their ruination. See: 4chan.org.
edit: I see some of the confusion here, since 4chan is seemingly liberal, due to having no formal rules. However, that is an illusion. A man is not actually free to say anything they like without consequences there. It’s just that the norms will be enforced by the community, instead of any kind of authority. This is not actual liberty and freedom, simply indoctrination cloaked in an illusion of freedom.
Real freedom would allow a man to express something like sympathy, or being against gamergate, and express that opinion in peace. The reality of such spaces does not actually permit this.
It seems liberal and free, but in effect it is not. This is similar to how Trump seems to be strong sometimes, but in reality is weak and cowardly. Toxic masculinity loves its illusions.
where men in many places are made to feel like they almost need to be ready to become a soldier at any moment.
sounds more like what would happen at a conservative place to me.
I feel you man, I know people that grew up in environments like that, and if you are not temperamentally suited for them they will chew you up.
I found it got a lot better when I moved out on my own and could choose who I spent time and who I did not. But not everyone can do that when they need the most.
The only places I have been close to that are “toxic” male places. All boys clubs, drinking clubs, rugby clubs.
But women see them as toxic and label then like that. But if you talk to them you get more toxic than from these clubs they aren’t a part of that tell you how horrible they are.
So, I’m not a woman, nor am I overly feminine, and I still call out toxic bullshit when I see it. If you want to say the problem is women/feminists though, fine whatever, if we cleaned up our own shit first, we might be able to make that stick. But when we’re bastards and they’re bitches, and we complain, we’re kinda the fucked up ones, y’know? Since we were supposed to be strong in the first place.
Unless you just think life is shit and everyone should get used to it. Then, just move to Russia or something, for everyone’s sake.
Can you give a few examples of what men can’t say or do completely freely in liberal places?
Sure. Go over into 4chan and try any behavior they would describe as “white knighting” or “simping”. You will rapidly experience some social consequences intended to dissuade that behavior.
Experiencing social consequences for saying something people disagree with is not infringing on your freedom. Unless they band together and try to go further than simply not liking what you have to say, how is that stopping men from saying their opinion on 4chan?
Independently, I wouldn’t call 4chan a liberal place. As far as I know, 4chan started and participated in activities in the past that go far beyond simply not liking an opinion. They doxxed, harassed and threatened people, among other things. And with support from many people on that platform.
Liberal in the traditional sense, as in, believing in liberty, I’m being technical. Not meaning “leftist” the way the word has been rebranded by right-leaners. So, their adoption of “no rules” is ultra-liberal, or libertarian perhaps.
And all social consequences are social. Drawing a distinction between legal and social is arbitrary. Suffering is suffering, and employing it to control dissenting voices is fundamentally illiberal. If you can prevent certain messages from appearing on your platform, you have successfully executed a form of control.
Thus, their ultra-liberty is an illusion. It’s not real.
Liberal narratives paint men as aggressive rapists at worst, and toxic manipulative sociopath at best. Liberal narratives onstantly evoke “tHe pATriArcHy” and “tOxic mAsCuLinity” hiding misandry behind pseudointellectualism
‘Toxic masculinity’ is referring specifically to masculinity that is toxic. It’s not referring to masculinity as a whole as toxic.
What does non-toxic masculinity look like then?
Pushes in glasses “uuum ackshually that’s not what it means”
Yeah no shit, tell that to the people on social media where the majority of popular discord takes place. And pretending that the meaning of the two isn’t obfuscated is disingenuous. At the end of the day it’s all antipositivists theory garbage that reads more like a political treatise than academic study.
Exactly. Feminist terminology like “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy” has been very carefully chosen to be misandrist enough to result in the intended widespread popular demonization of men that we’ve seen over the past few decades, while also giving feminists enough deniability to gaslight with “that’s not what the terms ackchually mean though”.
The misandry is a feature, not a bug.
Bingo
Brosif, calling a discussion of the patriarchy misandry makes it clear you don’t know what the patriarchy even is. It hurts everyone.
This is the pseudointellectualism I’m talking about. “You don’t actually understand what it ACTUALLY means” while the meanings are clearly obfuscated for the layperson.
Brosef, the term “patriarchy” itself is (and has always been) intentionally misleading and inherently misandrist, and has played a huge role in the modern demonization of men as a result. The “academic definition” of the term is irrelevant, as the (fully intended) real world negative consequences of the term for men in the cultural zeitgeist have been systemic and pervasive, as we can see all over this thread.
No
While those are some examples of “liberal narratives”, there’s also a very real “men are harmed by the patriarchy too” narrative.
I see the problem you see and I agree with you about it, it’s just the narratives you’ve described aren’t the only liberal narratives.
That whole men are hurt by the patriarcy too is a cop-out when people get called out on their bullshit ideology
Until there’s a liberal space for men, it’s going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives.
I mean, they/we also could create these spaces for us, much in the same way women did (and many other groups). And of course it’s easier to fall for reactionary groups when liberal groups are less visible, but it’s still a decision to follow their bullshit.
Shoutout to [email protected] (and similar spaces)
I mean, they/we also could create these spaces
We had these spaces, they were accused of sexism, and forced to open up to everyone, where the female spaces stayed all female. Boyscouts and Girlscouts comes to mind as an example.
The issue is that these spaces are often prime trolling grounds, and you end up having the same discussions over and over until the honest posters move on and only trolls are left.
Which is why the heavily moderated menslib sub on Reddit was so great, because they didn’t put up with that BS.
Agreed. Unfortunately, Lemmy has both design choices and cultural issues that make running heavily moderated communities essentially impossible.
As soon as men try to organize and speak out we get called sexist. If men wanted to start a men only club like women are allowed they would be forced to let women in. Just look at the boy scouts (ignoring the pedophiles) they were forced to allow girls but the girl scouts don’t have to allow boys. Males can’t have anything male only.
As soon as men try to organize and speak out we get called sexist.
That’s simply not true. We have at least one counselling centre in our city that is “boys/young men only” and several “men only” self help groups. I’ve never heard them being called sexist, on the contrary people generally agree that this is a good thing and we need more of this. And they are certainly not forced to include other genders.
There are obviously not enough initiatives like these. But a blanket statement like yours is false and if you make the claim that men are regularly getting called out as sexist for forming liberal safe spaces you should provide some sources (I’m not denying that it happens, it’s just not something I’ve experienced).
Just look at the boy scouts (ignoring the pedophiles)
The goal of boy scouts wasn’t to provide a safe space to explore gender identity or emotions or anything like that. There was no reason to exclude other genders.
Is that the goal of girl scouts, though?
I don’t think so.
What are you trying to say? I don’t know that much about Scouting in the U.S. At least in Germany we didn’t have this gender divide in scouting, but as GSUSA were founded after the BSA I suspect that their goal was to provide scouting for girls because they couldn’t join BSA.
The other guy said men can’t have man-only spaces, referring to Boy Scouts in contrast to Girl Scouts, and you said that Boy Scouts isn’t supposed to be a safe space to explore gender identity or emotions. If Girl Scouts isn’t that kind of thing either, then that sounds like you think men only get to have that kind of man-only space, while women can have whatever.
As a man, if the only man-only spaces available were about gender identity or emotions, I’d probably go to neither. The former because I’m fully comfortable as a man (and the use of the term “gender identity” there implies it’s more for trans people,) and the latter because I don’t have significant issues with my emotions. Frankly, I don’t really mind that most of the clubs and events that interest me are co-ed, but if there was a recurring women-only Minecraft party or something and there was never one for men, I’d be upset about that.
I was saying we could create the missing liberal spaces ourselves. ThePantser said we couldn’t because we’re being called out as sexist when we do that. The only example for that being “boy scouts” which I suppose means BSA, an organization with massive sexual abuse and bullying problems (according to Wikipedia). No idea how they are supposed to be “liberal”.
Whether the girl scouts accept other genders or not has no relevance for that argument. And if it would be fair for them to do that is a completely different discussion because girls are hit by sexism in a completely different way than boys.
the use of the term “gender identity” there implies it’s more for trans people
No, it doesn’t.
if there was a recurring women-only Minecraft party or something and there was never one for men, I’d be upset about that.
And again you are completely ignoring any arguments about why these spaces might make sense.
Women get told they need there own spaces for mental health, women’s issues, to have women’s chat.
Men aren’t allowed those things. They are told they never open up, they are toxic they shouldn’t be acting x,y,z and they should be more like girls.
What you are saying is when all thr fallout occurs then they get help. You are fixing a problem when their could be a solution before it becomes a problem.
It would be great if there was mens clubs to just hang out, drink, talk, play games things like that. In fact there was and they were HUGE but men aren’t allowed them now.
It would be great if boys could have that. Almost like a girls scouts but for boys.
I agree with this. On the left we do a bad job with men, because so much discourse is critical of men. We push them away.
You can’t expect people to hear “men are the problem” and not take it personally. Imagine saying something similar about any marginalized group.
We live in a time where telling someone they have privilege is practically an insult, because a) many people use their lack of privilege as a point of pride and identity, and b) the masculine narrative of “self made” is inherently at odds with the idea of privilege.
So modern leftist (and intersectional feminist) discourse is at odds with masculinity in an irreconcilable way.
We can’t just leave men behind. What we need to do is start talking about privilege and about men in a more fair way, explicitly acknowledging that just being a white cis man doesn’t mean you have it easy in life, economic considerations absolutely exist and class consciousness is important. We need to stop others within the left when they say “men bad”, or more importantly, when they say something that will be perceived as “men bad”.
This isn’t an issue of a couple people whose feelings are hurt, a huge huge proportion of the world is being pushed into darkness and we need to fucking do something about it.
Well-written response.
I agree and had a tangentially-related conversation the other day. I believe in feminism generally, yet as a man, I see the name as a disservice to its cause in the same way that white privilege instantly makes many white people defensive. It was revolutionary in the time it was created, but revolutionaries aren’t always great marketers (ie: ‘Defund The Police’ starting out as a means to redistribute governmental resources but becoming a rallying cry for Republicans) There is a modern day irony that as we try to make society more gender neutral and non-judgmental, the definition of equality is purposefully labeled after women which (un)consciously reframes masculinity in a negative light. In my limited understanding, I feel like early feminism tackled the ‘othering’ of women but never had a plan for if/when the pendulum swung and society started to (un)consciously favor them more in certain areas.
At the same time, it’s hard to have a nuanced conversation about semantics when there’s a non-trivial amount of the slighted group who wish harm/death on you solely because of your gender/race/religion. As a man, I can say that a lot of the Men’s Liberation/MGTOW people I’ve experienced tend to be toxic, misogynistic and insecure AF. Their foremost definition of themselves could be classified as 'in opposition to women"(There are radical feminist who view the world similarly FYI). It happens in religion too, and even the lack of religion as well… I’ve seen atheist forums that really just repost memes & news articles ridiculing religious fanatics instead of self-actualizing. The same thing happens re: politics generally too.
TL;DR: From a nuanced perspective, there are ways to make equality more marketable so that it doesn’t demoralize those who are expected to relinquish power/privilege (or to just generally become an ally). At the same time, it’s hard to negotiate w/ terrorist/bad-faith actors.
I agree with a lot of what you say.
My view is that to abolish it, we need to better and more fully understand the patriarchy and its effects on everyone.
First and foremost we must come to see how the unprivileged are damaged. But we can’t stop there.
The question about men isn’t about whether men are or aren’t the problem (because it isn’t that simple). Rather, it is in what ways men are affected positively and negatively by the patriarchy and how they do or don’t enforce and perpetuate the patriarchy and affect women and other groups, unwittingly or otherwise.
Since we are all steeped in this culture, that same analysis has to be done for everyone or we will never make meaningful progress.
As we continue to understand and work on issues women face, we can and must at the same time look at the whole picture.
This is it.
Men underperform in things like education and work.
Who gets all the help? Women.
There is so much toxic feminism that doesn’t get attention. A male only shelter got shut down by me because the feminists protested so much until it got shut down.
deleted by creator
Surely this is intersectional though right? Not all men are the same or have the same experience of political issues. I can see how straight white cis men might feel like these spaces aren’t for them. But queer men might feel differently about this. Black men also.
Also if you feel like existing spaces aren’t for you, then free to create your own spaces. There’s nothing holding you back.
Nearly all leftist spaces welcome straight white cis men. Anti-feminists are not welcome.
Counterpoint - men need to be less hung up on gender.
There’s plenty of liberal spaces for people even if not exclusively for men.
As a guy, I don’t need a sign outside saying “Open for men” to know I can go into a store, just “Open” suffices.
While there are aspects of my life that are informed by my biology and its social construct, it’s one of the least defining aspects of who I am as a person. I don’t need it specially recognized.
I’d much rather live in a world where there’s spaces for “people who like RPGs and fantasy” or “people who like tech” over “people who identify as male.” I have a ton in common with the former two, irrespective of gender identities, and very little in common with the latter other than fairly superficial things.
“Hey, pee standing up? Me too! We have so much in common we should be friends. Oh, you want to meet up at the bar to watch the latest hockey game? Yeah, that sounds…fun…”
The very idea of a “liberal space for men” is antithetical to my sense of liberalism. We should be liberated from arbitrary notions of identity, not reinforced into them.
And I don’t like how sparse the data points are but they went with a wobbly interpolated curve anyway.
I personally don’t like how the top left one starts at 2005, unlike every other graph, but they all have the same x scale. (I nitpick things sometimes)
They missed the chance to rotate these graphs vertically…
