Well maybe if our male politicians actually knew how to man up, we wouldn’t
Looking right at you, Chuck
jesusfish98 on
Hey, I just realized I haven’t seen any “what’s wrong with men” posts since Donald started fucking shit up. I guess I have one thing to be thankful for.
mullahchode on
/r/neoliberal man thread on a friday let’s fucking gooooooooooo
Funny-Puzzleheaded on
>democrats lost a close election and now have a Navel Gazing problem
RichardChesler on
“We’re not going to orient society’s decision making to the cognitive worldview of a 16-year-old male.”
Ok but we literally are living that right now.
Thatthingintheplace on
I’m going to continue to rant that the IRA was so ineffective partially because it had so many carve outs to ensure it was a jobs program for working class men. The numbet of final assembly plants and other no real value add bullshit that sprung up to be in compliance with BABA requirements is painful.
But there also wasnt a single democrat that was willing to stand up and say that they did that. Pandering in policy while trying to actively hide that fact when talking about it obviously doesnt work. You just get worse policy and ammunition for the right wing fueling the idea that democrats dont like men. Fucking infuriating
LuisRobertDylan on
>The crucial way to reengage disaffected men, multiple Democrats told me, is to champion an economy that “works like Legos, not Monopoly,” as Auchincloss put it. “An economy where we are building more technical vocational high schools, and we are celebrating the craftsmanship of the trades so that young men have a sense of autonomy and being a provider.”
Another example of Democrats believing that “blue collar” is still an economic designation and not a cultural one. I work with guys who make middle-class money, own homes, and work in an air-conditioned office who still see themselves as blue-collar because they drive a truck, hunt, and vote Republican.
mullahchode on
> Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also notes liberal squeamishness about masculine themes; **he says the party is losing male voters in part because even talking about the need to improve the lives of men could run afoul of what he calls the “word police” on the left**. Murphy told me, “There’s a worry that when you start talking about gender differences and masculinity, that you’re going to very quickly get in trouble.” The Democratic Party, he thinks, has not been purposeful enough in opening up a conversation with men in general and young men specifically. “There is a reluctance inside the progressive movement to squarely acknowledge gender differences, and that has really put us on the back foot.”
Mickenfox on
>The other is to focus on more traditional messaging about the economy, on the assumption that if Democrats build an agenda for blue-collar America, the guys will follow.
“Focus on the economy” is the political equivalent of “Depressed? Try exercising more and going out for a walk”
(More on topic: just pander to them like you do with every other demographic lol)
All the r/neoliberal men meeting up to discuss men in the weekly what’s up with men r/neoliberal thread (we have no idea).
WAGRAMWAGRAM on
Why are the “men stuff” in these articles about MMA, NASCAR, big tits in video games, and not reading pop economic books, or reading about (often military) history or “classics”, watching dads style history movies, carpentry (hi Fukuyama) which are typically “guy things” too?
financeguy1729 on
We need to frame tariffs as being gay
EDIT: Bad idea. If we do it too well, our guys will like them.
If democrats have a man problem, it’s 40 years old.
What’s far more likely is that there’s no particular man problem, and rather the republican party is somewhat more male-coded than the democratic party and will continue to be that way.
wwaxwork on
Seeing what happens when the party that is all about what men, sorry 16 year old boys, want is in office why are we trying for the same demographic?
hibikir_40k on
The problem is much more wicked than what the piece says.
The problem with the modern man is similar to the one of the victorian woman, as indicated by good old “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”. It’s ancient so it’s free on the internet, just read the intro.
It describes how victorian womanhood was defined in large part by not doing mainly things. The problem is all the things that make someone a good, strong, social, virtuous person were labeled as manly. Women were trapped into a caricature of “virtues” that were good for amusing men, and trying to get them to marry you, but ultimately didn’t even prepare them to be wives or mothers, much less independent people.
The modern manosphere is a dark mirror of that victorian womanhood: The things that make you a man are things that a woman doesn’t do, and women now are winning in college admittance. A man cannot be pro-social, as women do that. So a man’s identity is limited to their vices, the bad things that might still be attractive to women, but useless in helping a society move forward in the slightest. Every attempt to be more “male” thus becomes a way to be less fit for society, and more of a failure. Trying to make the world better for people with that mindset is as useful as trying to get better outcomes for victorian women while still keeping them acting within the old lines.
It’s not as if history hasn’t had better examples of what it is to be a man. But trying to be Rogan, or worse, a pick up artist, or am Andrew Tate, is just a road to destruction, and there’s no reasonable way to make that road have good outcomes for most. The best one can do that way is to become an influencer: MLMs for men, in practice, but with even more value captured at the top.
The problem therefore is not the outcomes for men, but how in the world we show people that their idols are just weak scammers, not strong, independent men that help make society a better place.
15 Comments
Well maybe if our male politicians actually knew how to man up, we wouldn’t
Looking right at you, Chuck
Hey, I just realized I haven’t seen any “what’s wrong with men” posts since Donald started fucking shit up. I guess I have one thing to be thankful for.
/r/neoliberal man thread on a friday let’s fucking gooooooooooo
>democrats lost a close election and now have a Navel Gazing problem
“We’re not going to orient society’s decision making to the cognitive worldview of a 16-year-old male.”
Ok but we literally are living that right now.
I’m going to continue to rant that the IRA was so ineffective partially because it had so many carve outs to ensure it was a jobs program for working class men. The numbet of final assembly plants and other no real value add bullshit that sprung up to be in compliance with BABA requirements is painful.
But there also wasnt a single democrat that was willing to stand up and say that they did that. Pandering in policy while trying to actively hide that fact when talking about it obviously doesnt work. You just get worse policy and ammunition for the right wing fueling the idea that democrats dont like men. Fucking infuriating
>The crucial way to reengage disaffected men, multiple Democrats told me, is to champion an economy that “works like Legos, not Monopoly,” as Auchincloss put it. “An economy where we are building more technical vocational high schools, and we are celebrating the craftsmanship of the trades so that young men have a sense of autonomy and being a provider.”
Another example of Democrats believing that “blue collar” is still an economic designation and not a cultural one. I work with guys who make middle-class money, own homes, and work in an air-conditioned office who still see themselves as blue-collar because they drive a truck, hunt, and vote Republican.
> Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also notes liberal squeamishness about masculine themes; **he says the party is losing male voters in part because even talking about the need to improve the lives of men could run afoul of what he calls the “word police” on the left**. Murphy told me, “There’s a worry that when you start talking about gender differences and masculinity, that you’re going to very quickly get in trouble.” The Democratic Party, he thinks, has not been purposeful enough in opening up a conversation with men in general and young men specifically. “There is a reluctance inside the progressive movement to squarely acknowledge gender differences, and that has really put us on the back foot.”
>The other is to focus on more traditional messaging about the economy, on the assumption that if Democrats build an agenda for blue-collar America, the guys will follow.
“Focus on the economy” is the political equivalent of “Depressed? Try exercising more and going out for a walk”
(More on topic: just pander to them like you do with every other demographic lol)
https://preview.redd.it/2jik20xv9ooe1.jpeg?width=598&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c173cd592fb9fd20671e969e9e72dd6033645ad
All the r/neoliberal men meeting up to discuss men in the weekly what’s up with men r/neoliberal thread (we have no idea).
Why are the “men stuff” in these articles about MMA, NASCAR, big tits in video games, and not reading pop economic books, or reading about (often military) history or “classics”, watching dads style history movies, carpentry (hi Fukuyama) which are typically “guy things” too?
We need to frame tariffs as being gay
EDIT: Bad idea. If we do it too well, our guys will like them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/comments/1hwskmb/republican_male_margin_in_presidential_elections/
If democrats have a man problem, it’s 40 years old.
What’s far more likely is that there’s no particular man problem, and rather the republican party is somewhat more male-coded than the democratic party and will continue to be that way.
Seeing what happens when the party that is all about what men, sorry 16 year old boys, want is in office why are we trying for the same demographic?
The problem is much more wicked than what the piece says.
The problem with the modern man is similar to the one of the victorian woman, as indicated by good old “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”. It’s ancient so it’s free on the internet, just read the intro.
It describes how victorian womanhood was defined in large part by not doing mainly things. The problem is all the things that make someone a good, strong, social, virtuous person were labeled as manly. Women were trapped into a caricature of “virtues” that were good for amusing men, and trying to get them to marry you, but ultimately didn’t even prepare them to be wives or mothers, much less independent people.
The modern manosphere is a dark mirror of that victorian womanhood: The things that make you a man are things that a woman doesn’t do, and women now are winning in college admittance. A man cannot be pro-social, as women do that. So a man’s identity is limited to their vices, the bad things that might still be attractive to women, but useless in helping a society move forward in the slightest. Every attempt to be more “male” thus becomes a way to be less fit for society, and more of a failure. Trying to make the world better for people with that mindset is as useful as trying to get better outcomes for victorian women while still keeping them acting within the old lines.
It’s not as if history hasn’t had better examples of what it is to be a man. But trying to be Rogan, or worse, a pick up artist, or am Andrew Tate, is just a road to destruction, and there’s no reasonable way to make that road have good outcomes for most. The best one can do that way is to become an influencer: MLMs for men, in practice, but with even more value captured at the top.
The problem therefore is not the outcomes for men, but how in the world we show people that their idols are just weak scammers, not strong, independent men that help make society a better place.