I think progressives never thought about this because we banked on immigration and demographic change allowing us to win culturally and electorally but the issue is immigrants tend to be overwhelmingly male, that is how Trump won actually he won over a lot of Hispanic,Black,Asian and indigenous men who feel humiliated by a new culture, economy and world.
So what can we do rhetorically and policy wise to win more young men over ?
Mushrooms
Look at what men are missing and how the right is selling it to them.
Men aren’t doing so hot right now, emotionally and mentally. They feel like they are not manly, and criticized for trying to be manly or liking manly things. There’s a lack of transitions into manhood, and the bar that is seen as a successful man with a good career is pretty much impossible.
If you have a poor paying job, you’re not manly. If you have a well paying job but it’s blue collar you’re not manly because you’re a dumb working stiff. If you have a white collar job you’re not manly because you’re not doing anything tough with your body. Maybe if you’re a CEO who owns the company but also does rock climbing and bear fighting are you seen as manly enough, maybe.
Then you have these guys, your Andrew Tates and so on, who act very manly and tell you it’s ok to be a man and then spout off some of the most toxic, asinine shit saying that’s how you be a man. And young guys fall for it because they aren’t shown any alternative.
Then on the left you have people who speak ill of men as a whole, and manliness as a whole. Sometimes the criticisms are correct, but a lot of times it’s presented as men overall. If you try to say that it’s not every man out there who’s a monster, you get blasted with criticism for saying “not all men”. They also don’t provide anything positive or solutions for feeling manly, with the best they can be offered is to be more like women.
So young men, especially young cishet men, are actively pushed away from leftist spaces, leaving them feeling demonized by those spaces, and actively pandered to by the right which are offering mind poison dressed up as solutions.
So what do we do? There’s a few things to fix.
-
leftist media has to stop demonizing men and start demonizing actions. Instead of saying “men are rapists” start saying “rapists are bad”. When people start to say things like “cis people are shit” other people need to call them out of it, because if you’re supposed to be the side that accepts people’s gender identity, it should be for all gender identities. It can feel cathartic to rail against the majority demographic, especially when people of that demographic have hurt you, but if you feel that it’s unfair to rail against a group because of the actions of a few members of it, that should apply to all groups. Things like “what’s wrong with the straights” doesn’t help build bonds with allies, and it turns young men away from leftist spaces.
-
there needs to be validation and recognition from the left for problems men have, like suicide, workplace death and heavier prison sentencing. The left needs to show that they are trying to fix these problems, too, instead of telling young men to suck it up and be a man about it because they are the oppressor demographic.
-
there needs to be people who counter toxic masculinity, not with telling men to be more like women, but with positive masculinity. If a man is having emotional or mental problems, toxic masculinity says to push that down. Femininity says it’s ok to be soft and vulnerable. Positive masculinity would say that a real man is true to himself and his feelings and expresses then freely, even if others might ridicule him for it. There’s a subtle difference, and the end result of femininity’s and positive masculinity’s tactic might be the same, i.e. the man expresses those feelings, but the way that they get there is very different. The former makes the man feel less validated in his identity, while the latter uplifts it. The memes where they say stuff like “I always tell my homies I love them before they go to bed” actually work.
-
leftist influencers need to make fighting for the rights of minorities seem manly. Badass. Like a hero. Worthy of praise and celebration.
-
while they won’t get the financial and political backing that the toxic male influencers get, there needs to be positive male influencers who talk about masculinity in a positive way, while promoting the ideas above. There needs to be an alternative, who acts manly but in the fun, positive way, that validates young men’s feelings of inadequacy, frustration, and isolation, while promoting an egalitarian perspective.
-
there needs to be a cultural shift in what makes a man. A shift away from dying in battle or becoming a tycoon, and a resurgence of the working class hero. Mass media itself needs to change and promote positive male figures. It can work and be popular, like in Avatar the Last Airbender. We need to show men that they are still men, and still worthy of love, respect and adoration, even if they aren’t a super soldier or a wealthy elite. A lot of this is counter to capitalistic goals, so it may have to be subversive, but eventually it needs to be made the norm.
-
other men need to continue to step up and speak out about injustice towards minorities and against toxic masculinity behaviors in the day to day, and start decrying those behaviors as unmanly. People need to call Andrew Tate and the like unmanly.
-
ideally, the men’s rights movement should be absorbed by the left and the toxic incels kicked out. It should be done in the name of gender equality. Fixing only woman’s problems won’t solve the patriarchy (which could be changed to a different term so everyone feels like it’s less of an us vs them) and feminists should try to help solve men’s problems directly rather than indirectly. Young men would see feminism as more appealing if feminists actually focused on men’s problems as well, rather than ignoring or worse, demonizing them. Feminism could be rebranded as an egalitarian movement for all sexes and genders, maybe get a name change. If the patriarchy affects everyone, then the focus should be on everyone. Maybe it would have to be a whole new movement entirely.
So it’s a larger problem than just getting more leftist male influencers, and some of those problems are systematic. Some can get worked on today. Talking about masculinity in a positive way, promotive equity, stop both their side and your side from bigotry, and, probably the thing that would get young men on board the most:
Actually trying to solve the problems young men are going through.
W-Wait, what is this? A well-thought out, constructive, sympathetic comment? Here? I don’t believe it!
Real talk, though: This is an incredibly solid post and I really appreciate you taking the time to actually write all of these points out. It’s rare (or, subjectively, it feels rare) to see an admission that a major shift in how this topic is approached is needed, and I feel just a bit more hopeful seeing someone else put in the time to go this deep on it.
I would only make two add-on comments to your points:
-
With regard to point #6, I agree with the concept - but we have to be careful of how we phrase this. Unless it comes with a major effort to utterly restructure our economy in such a way that either a man’s value is no longer measured in his ability to be successful in a paid position, and/or we restructure our economy to make success more viable, I fear that efforts to support “working class heros” are doomed to become awkward failures as automation continues to steamroll the viability of those positions.
-
One point I don’t see brought up here, though it is touched at in (1) and (8), is that we’ve got to modulate how we discuss so-called “toxic” behavior. When so many seemingly minor behaviors are met with the same levels of disdain, villainization, and even punishment as things like actual sexual assault, it ends up feeling deeply isolating, undermines the point that is trying to be made, and pushes men towards the worst actors.
Thanks, I’m glad you liked it!
I kinda agree on your points. I feel that working class heros could make a comeback if done well, though.
Hell ideally I’d like to see more historical stuff based on labor history, Blair Mountain was crazy and could totally be an action movie.
For #6, I don’t think we necessarily have to move away from the idea that being a man means being a provider and a protector. At least to me those are some of the core tenants of being a man.
The person above you mentioned the men in Avatar the last Airbender. But I also want to add in the men in LOTR, Gomez Adams, Ted Lasso, Kratos in the newer god of war games, and Steve Rodgers.
These are men who are caring, loving, emotional and they are (mostly) able to show those emotions, capable of growth, and able to admit when they are wrong. But they are still men. Men who struggle with anger, men go to war and protect their families, men who are incredibly strong in the face of struggle, men who sometimes make “inappropriate” (to the left) jokes, and men who strive for nothing else but bettering the lives of those in their care.
I sometimes hate that what counts as “positive masculinity” is really just feminity but dressed up in a blue bow. Men are not women and telling them that they can’t be super competitive, can’t be angry, and can’t fail is just setting them up to fall into toxic masculinity. This might just be me talking about the culture I was raised in but those things aren’t necessarily a bad thing, and erasing what a “man” has been for generations isn’t going to win you any extra fans.
Sorry, I think maybe my point was misunderstood. Trust me, I’m in full agreement with you: Like the comment I was responding to was saying, trying to simply frame “positive” masculinity in terms of feminine traits doesn’t seem like a good idea. There needs to be a positive reference for actually masculine role models and ideals.
Like, literally everything you said is something I totally agree with.
My concern is that, specifically, initiatives which idealize working-class providers and fail to recognize the way automation and computerization have significantly flattened the jobs market (especially well-paying, working-class jobs), are intrinsically doomed because we don’t have an economy which widely supports men acting as supporters for a family. If we idealize a working provider but simultaneously leave things in a state where a man can’t provide for his family, what I fear we’re actually left with is swaths of men feeling unfulfilled and angry at those in charge for bringing them to this point.
-
brb gotta tell my son I love him
Thank you for taking the time to write that. That was very well thought out and I really can’t see much or anything to quibble about.
I am a gay man raised in a conservative culture and I really know quite a lot of men in their 30s and 40s who are straight and accepting of me, but still deeply deeply troubled and confused about what it means to be a man. They struggle to identify and articulate their emotions quite a lot.
The fact that those in same-sex relationships have to invent their own ways of dividing the work in a partnership without reference to pre-defined gender roles makes their insight incredibly useful to the world at large. A lot of the struggles that men experience are due to rigid gender roles that do not allow for healthy expression.
I get a little bit angry because it’s like we were expected to accept that provisional approval from the Supreme Court, which as we all know is a very fragile victory.
Why? Because frankly, I think gay men and lesbians have a lot to teach about relationships just by existing visibly. Transgender people do too, but they do not yet enjoy the patchy and tentative acceptance that same sex relationships between cis people have achieved in the large parts of the USA. Their struggle is very intense right now and the LGBQs can help by getting loud again.
Why did we give up on the fight so early? The struggle for existence is not quite as dire for gay and lesbian people as it used to be, but it is still quite a struggle as nothing is assured. But it is not just for our benefit that we must be visible. Frankly, our experience gives us a great deal of wisdom and insight that our society, and men especially, desperately need.
l feel that the acceptance of LGBT people has actually had a beneficial effect on cishet men in ways most people aren’t aware of.
Dating is a good example. Traditionally the guy asks the girl out and pays for everything. This system sucks. It means men feel desperate and have to prove their worth (financial and otherwise) feeling lonely and worthless and women are stuck with the constant stream of guys trying to hit on them, dealing with harassment and worse.
But with more acceptance of homosexual relationships, that traditional method of dating doesn’t apply. The old “but who’s the guy” confusion goes away, and people as a whole realize that it’s stupid. If you see a post about a woman insisting a guy pays for everything or a guy insisting on ordering for his date they seem old fashioned and weirdly demanding. Most people wouldn’t bat an eye about a girl asking a guy out on a date now, and I’ll bet there’s some old newspaper headlines about some lady doing that in the past.
By your nature you’re helping to break down these dysfunctional systems and it’s actually helping people, so thanks a lot for that!
You hit the nail on the head AND provided clear action items. Excellent post.
I do think that it would be difficult to rebrand “feminism” and “patriarchy” because the terms are inherently gendered and are sometimes still being used for gendered purposes. We should definitely find new terms and be more accurate about the egalitarian movement being a new movement, or a rebrand of the more general parts of feminism, rather than trying to reuse the old movement’s terms when it doesn’t make sense.
I get that this is upvoted a lot due to being constructive but it also reflects a lot of Republican media tropes about the left that aren’t really true - and that’s why trying to “fix” these things won’t work - because it misses the real problem.
Examples: No significant figure on the left is saying “men are rapists”, or telling men to be more like women, etc. Reducing suicide, safer workplaces, and reducing excessive prison sentences are all priorities for the left and not for the right.
I think the real problem is quite simple: Republicans have invested heavily in portraying themselves as the “masculine party”, and in driving the narratives I’ve mentioned. And because Republican leaders like the Murdochs and Elon tend to be men, they’re best at driving those narratives.
Which goes to the real underlying problem with the left as a whole - no ability to drive or counter a media narrative. The right has Fox news and Elon’s control over Twitter, which they can and do regularly use to create whatever narrative they want. Notice how for example they just made white south African farmer killings a topic all of a sudden. The left has a bunch of corporate media whose top priority is selling truck ads. Sure, maybe the reporters themselves are left leaning, but they have no top down guidance as to what narratives to build.
And until the left creates some sort of media capability to create and control narratives, the right will always have a leg up. And because of that, none of the well intentioned ideas here will actually work. If the left tries to appeal to men, the right will decide how those appeals will be interpreted.
I agree with you for the most part, but there is a thread you missed.
While there might not be a significant leftist media personality which says misandrist things, there are a lot of smaller people who do. There’s an air of “men are not welcome here, specifically cishet men” in lefty spaces. And people who try to speak out against it tend to be ousted. (Case study Erin Pizzey) There wouldn’t be a demand for “male tears” mugs out there if there wasn’t a demand for them.
Whether you think this behavior is acceptable or not, it doesn’t make the left seem appealing to young men, especially because it’s not called out by people.
But yeah, the top down media? A huge machine that’s a problem. The left will have a hard time replicating it, especially because when you live in hyper capitalism, it’s not really in the benefit of capitalists to try to fix it.
All these things already exist and maybe just need more exposure.
Most things already exist. What we need is for this to become the dominant understanding/goals of the left.
This is a great solution but it has two big problems that make it functionally impossible.
- To the left there is no non-toxic or positive masculinity.
- Feminism doesn’t actually support men, it’s a reluctant talking point. It only helps men if it happens to coincide with benefiting women.
Depends on what part of the left you’re talking about, but yeah, these are things which have to change in order for it to work well.
You can’t help men and hang on to feminism. Feminism is inherently anti-male.
I don’t think that’s inherently true for all feminism, though there’s definitely been some bad actors. Actresses.
Wrong. Feminism is anti-patriarchy, for everyone. Educate yourself, read a little.
Feminism started as a way to fight for the rights of women. That’s not anti-male, but it’s also not “for everyone”.
Of course the focus is on women and generally LGBTQ+ people, as they are oppressed groups.
In its wider sense though, especially with the focus on intersectionality, it is for a fairer and juster world for everyone as the systems of oppression affect us all in various capacities.
I don’t know if I would categorize that as feminism though. Egalitarianism maybe? “Social justice” in the non-derogatory sense?
Feminism is just a collective name for various ideologies with the aim of social justice for all genders/sexes. Within you will find many different movements with various qualities. In general, it’s about creating societal/governmental systems that afford the same quality of life and opportunities for everyone, regardless of gender, race or sexuality.
You could see it as a subcategory of egalitarianism, which in general has the goal of social justice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
In the end, of course not every movement is perfect, people are fallible after all. But that doesn’t only concern feminists even if they are one of the main targets of the manufactured right-wing culture war. And furthermore, some people going too far/not being nuanced enough/not going far enough is not a reason to disregard the movement and its wider aims in a fight for a better world for all.
I’m not disregarding the movement; I’m saying the definition is trying to be too many things at once. If the narrow definition (traditional feminism for women’s rights and needs) and the wide definition (general gender issues) are too far apart, they begin to disagree. People both inside and outside of the movement are using the term in the narrower definition, and it doesn’t make sense IMO to continue to try to force the wider one when we could just pick a term that’s more accurate and go with that.
As an example of how this difference in definitions could be an issue, let’s say that I’m a man and I want to fight for some particular men’s rights issue. I would not feel comfortable taking my sign about trial verdict imbalance or male suicide rates to a feminist rally, because it only fits the broader definition. Anyone there who is fighting for feminism in the narrower definition would not appreciate me and my cause cause in what they perceive as a space to fight for women’s issues only. But in the broader definition, that sign would be fine, and others would welcome me. The people using either definition aren’t wrong, but the uncertainty created by having two valid definitions creates an atmosphere where it is more comfortable to fight for women’s rights than men’s rights.
Therefore, I think it would be smart to be able to specify, using the movement’s name, if an event is about women’s rights or gender equality in general. It can’t be both ways; to me, the inevitable result of the uncertain definition-- a gender equality movement where it is more accepted to fight for the rights of one gender-- is clearly worse than the alternative scenario where the terms are more clear.
Being anti-patriarchy is an inherently anti-male stance. A feminist walks up to a man and says “We’re trying to erode your influence on society, isn’t that great?” Yeah, and what the natives need is Christianity.
They’ll try to lie and market “The Patriarchy” as whatever they think they can get away with at the moment with the audience they’ve cornered, pretend like defeating “The Patriarchy” should be the goal of whoever they’re talking to as well. It shouldn’t.
Feminism started out as things like the suffragettes, wanting the right to vote in elections. Fair enough. “We want to be equal to men!” Uh huh…so here in 2025 what right or privilege do I enjoy under the law that a woman doesn’t?
I will also assert this: No feminist will be caught dead genuinely helping a man. A feminist is more likely to burn down a men’s shelter than build one.
God damn, what a load of incel bullshit you’re spewing. You’re exactly the problem and the reason why women would rather spend time with a bear than another self-absorbed manlet.
Patriarchy affects everyone badly, not just women. But I won’t be wasting time, you can learn about everything if you just put in a little effort. You seem to be choosing egoistical ignorance.
see?
Right, spewing bullshit and then framing resistance as confirmation of your ficticious points - classic playbook. Go and touch grass for once ;)
Citation needed
-
Talk about issues that affect the working class. Not the white working class, not working class men, just everyone who makes a living by drawing a wage. Progressive movements are formed by solidarity, and we have more in common with other working class people than any of the politicians or business leaders who set the tone of this debate.
Perfect.
Man it’s like the majority of people here don’t have ‘regular guy’ friends.
The way to get to regular dudes, is to make them feel fucking included. Yes, diversity is fucking awesome. Yes, having women in leadership roles is fucking awesome. But for your average guy… who do they have to look up to on the left side of things? In the news? In congress? Who is on the national stage for these things? Who is talking to those people?
There isn’t anyone. There are tons of people talking to other groups of people, but there has been flat out no courting of the white dude demographic outside of White Dudes for Harris (which was brilliant but came too late).
Speak to the issues these guys are facing. Talk about dating. Talk about career struggles. Talk about feeling alone, and feeling vulnerable. And then, talk about solution based problem-solving for these things.
Why do you think the right wing latched onto guys who do the whole personal betterment thing? It’s the same shit that white supremacist groups do. They’ll get you with things that anyone can agree with like ‘Hey man if you work hard you’ll succeed. I fucking believe in you when no one else will.’ Then they go into the right wing bullshit because now they have you at an emotional level.
There is no online left presence doing these things, and there are multiple right wing people doing this shit.
Make a left wing Joe Rogan, and bro-dudes will watch that shit like shit on velcro. But it has to be a dude-bro talking to them. It can’t be Rachel Maddow or AOC, it has to be someone who comes from that background.
outside of White Dudes for Harris (which was brilliant but came too late).
Everyone that wasn’t “vote blue no matter who” thought that was comically bad and pathetic. It turned more men off Harris than towards her lol.
Make a left wing Joe Rogan, and bro-dudes will watch that shit like shit on velcro.
That’s not how it works though, because a “left wing Joe Rogan” can’t happen because the reason someone like Joe Rogan is so popular is because he sees through bullshit and calls it what it is. The democrats are on the wrong side of so many 80/20 issues that any “left wing Joe Rogan” would have to call out their own bullshit in exactly the same way that the actual Joe Rogan does.
I wanted to reminisce about the Daily Show when it was at its best. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert were huge for me. Realistically though they aren’t the right kind of people for the type of role model your talking about. Part of the left’s problem is that the language and style that are used is too intellectual. It contrubitues to the right being able to dismiss progressives as “coastal elites” Part of Bernie’s appeal is that he seems very down to earth and straightforward and that’s one of the reason that the right has so much trouble going after him. We need a progressive plumber.
I always make the same argument as to why left-wing politics has been so generally unappealing to working-class, average people - in spite of the irony. I vote left, I have a uni degree, and they still piss me off. Don’t talk about Marxist analyses, and don’t make everything about gender identity or Palestine (I care deeply about Palestine, but it’s not the main issue that I’d want my local political party to focus on) make it about the issues facing regular people on an every day basis. Say “bro, me like taxes” instead of producing a 20-page paper on the evils of capitalism.
I think Walz can be that guy, seriously.
Waltz is so obviously fake, insincere, and a typical democrat through and through that the Democrats have zero chance while he is on the ballot for President or Vice President. They need to try and make people forget he exists.
Why do we need a role model anyway? I’m a straight white married male with no kids and very progressive. I don’t need a role model to not be a piece of shit.
Nice for you bro!
But you should also think that a lot of people dont have the luck to see life as you and struggle with much stuff.
I understand. But you also can’t read one sentence about me and describe it as lucky. I had shitty abusive parents. I worked my way through college so it took a little longer. Struggled financially at times. Have lived with suicidal tendencies since my parents divorced when I was 12 and became even more shitty and abusive.
I’m only successful because of myself and the work I’ve put into my life to be where I am today. To me having a role model wouldn’t have done or changed anything. I get that others might need it, but I don’t think every straight white male in America needs a role model and is doomed to be a conservative just because they can’t find one.
There are plenty of straight white males that are progressive or liberal. The ones that are conservative aren’t that way just because of a shitty role model. Many are shitty in plenty of other ways.
I completely understand were you’re coming from. I grew up in an incredibly disfunctional/abusive household and left at 15. I’ve been pretty much completely self-reliant since then. I was mostly self reliant before that. My parents idea of raising children was occasionally popping in to feed us or beat us (sometimes literally) into submission. I don’t need any external input to come to my own non-shitty conclusions on things because I’ve always had to think for myself.
However, I was also extremely lucky to find some good male role models in early adulthood that completely changed a lot of my life, mostly by exposing me to new ideas, skill sets, and opportunities. I think, while you and I have been shaped by hardships in a way that makes us mentally resilient enough to feel like we don’t need that mentorship, most young men don’t have that and they’re really floundering without guidance. I also think that this ultimately stems from homophobic tensions drilled into men of the last few generations that told us that platonic close relationships and brotherly affection between men is unacceptable.
So, while I agree that right wing ideology isn’t the default for young men who lack positive guidance, it’s a completely understandable outcome when the only available guidance they have, in a world that leaves young people with so many important/big questions, is a highly curated machine designed to lure them into a downward spiral towards far right/ fascist ideology.
You’re a married male. People who are in their late teens/early 20’s are looking for life advice and people to emulate.
The sad thing is there’s not a lot of good advice right now.
The world is VASTLY different than 50 years ago. No you can’t just talk to the boss of the building and ask for a job.
The insane numbers game that job applications have become is so opaque that any advice in it is about as useful as sacrificing a goat.
Every company wants to remove as many humans as possible from its payroll. Covid and AI have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt, loyalty means absolutely nothing now.
Just surviving in this current environment is a brand new challenge and field.
As a white lady I don’t know who the fuck my role model is either
Role models are absolutely important, but it’s more than what the op comment is saying.
I don’t follow the media and the debate where you live, but over here left leaning politicians and media tends to frame it as: women, minorites etc have a problem. Men are the problem.
You’re basically pushing any undecided man over to the right.
So we should lie?
Men are the problem. The patriarchy, the racism, the discrimination? Men.
And if you are too braindead to understand this, you’re too far gone anyway.
You can’t have a post like this and then wonder “Why do so many men go to the right?”
Maybe men are sick of being painted with a broad brush. We all have our own thoughts, beliefs and feelings.
Troll grade: C-.
Does Trump pay you by the hour or per post?
I’m not payed, I just don’t see a reality where we can improve the world and not mention the hundreds of years of oppression by men at the same time, which, as you already said, will drive away the republicans. So you really gotta start thinking „should we ignore the obvious problem why woman are to this day fighting for human rights so we can find a compromise with Nazis?” and my answer is obviously no.
You should be paid because you’re basically campaigning for the republicans.You don’t drive away any core republican voter, they would never vote D. You drive away the ones who voted democrat last election.
You’re making an excellent point here. I’ll bring it up at the next Council of Men that we should stop oppressing women. Good thing we figured that out - top notch work!
You’re conflating a lot of things here
Men are the problem. The patriarchy, the racism, the discrimination? Men.
Ultra rich men are the problem. We’re losing a class war.
… And shoot your buck!
I have more respect for open misandry than you might expect, but if your emotions are preventing you from crafting worthwhile politics, remove yourself from the situation.
The calm, reasonable people are talking, and histrionic performance like this is a step away from panicking.
Your trauma response may be valid, but that does not mean it is productive.
Yes, I am telling you to calm the fuck down.
Easy
Every time there is a conversation regarding men issues, dismiss them as talking about something that clearly DOESN’T EXISTS, demean them, if they are emotionally intelligent enough to defend themselves from the TOTALLY NOT aggressive rhetoric, compare them to something else, preferably, something weaker and less smart than them, bonus points if you attack their sexuality in the same phrase, that always gets them riled up to support you!
Even more so if you treat them like complete imbeciles with a memory span of seconds and assume they forgot about all the years you have been doing this exact same thing!
And whatever you do, don’t forget to bring up how women have and keep having BIGGER issues
That’ll work wonders
I genuinely believe that more empathy is needed in both directions for people to come out of their trenches. Problem is, it"s hard to feel empathy for those who have no empathy in return. It’s a locked position reinforcing itself with every bad interaction. To break out of this we would have to listen and show that we care, while not getting the same things back. It feels bad. Unfair. Again, this goes both ways.
Well it would be a good starting point if we actually had progressive politicians. The Democrats lose because they have no substantive platform for actually helping people because doing that would go against their donors. To be clear, it’s the same for Republicans. There’s a reason why the government just ping pongs between the two parties. The only reliable base either party has is the one that’s more culturally aligned with them, whatever that means at the time.
If they literally ever credibly ran on basic issues like housing, food, healthcare and the elections were fair, they would win. But they don’t, because they can’t, so they will never have consistent support.
If they literally ever credibly ran on basic issues like housing, food, healthcare and the elections were fair, they would win. But they don’t, because they can’t, so they will never have consistent support.
Exactly. Lack of election reform - lack of representative government for minorities and less funded groups - is blocking so many kinds of progress.
Promote and get behind actual progressive candidates, not corporatist shills like Hillary or Kamala. I like Kshama Sawant because she calls shit like she sees it.
By “progressive” you mean even further left towards communism, right?
Do yourself a favor and look up the term “Overton Window”. Right now we have two fascist parties in the U.S., one who virtue signals to “wokeness”, and one who virtue signals to religious zealots and gun nuts.
The same as it always has been. Punk Rock. Conservative shit is so goddamn cringe it’s really hard to imagine how it has convinced anyone that it is any kind of counterculture.
Because the definition of counterculture is “against the mainstream”.
The liberal viewpoint has been the mainstream for probably 50 years now. There’s a reason there’s a song called “Nazi Punks Fuck Off”. Because there are Nazi punks. Who exist because not being racist is mainstream, and you can therefore rebel against it.
A little out of the blue but I watched an episode of a German cooking show today where strangers are coupled in groups of five for a week and every day one of them has to cook for the rest of them. They then vote who was the best host.
This week was ALL 30-38 year-old straight Dads. Nobody talked about football.
Nobody chestbumped anyone. Nobody was mansplaning anything. Instead, they were all swooning over each others’ cooking skills, making each other cry over how much they love their kids and hugging each other for feeling insecure about their cooking. In other words it was the most realistic and “manly” portrayal of the male reality that I have seen in the media ever.
It’s easy to blame the media and the “culture war” for male alienation but I strongly believe that our perception of ourselves is largely influenced by our peer group’s portrayal in society. In other words: if I feel antagonized, I tend to overreact. If I am being told by Hollywood or social media to “stop being a mansplaning patriarch” I will be imprinted with the very idea to identify as such.
So long story short: non-toxic masculinity needs more representation AND it needs to come from a place of positivity, not judgement or condescension.
Instead, they were all swooning over each others’ cooking skills, making each other cry over how much they love their kids and hugging each other for feeling insecure about their cooking. In other words it was the most realistic and “manly” portrayal of the male reality that I have seen in the media ever.
This is in no way a realistic or "manly " portrayal of the greater male reality.
Ok
what is this cooking show because it sounds delightful. statesians have lost the plot when it comes to cooking shows
It’s called “Das perfekte Dinner”, it’s been on the air for 20 years and is one of those shows that defies the death of classic television.
It can appear quite boring if you come from watching things like chef’s table or hell’s kitchen, as there is little drama, its unscripted and it’s mostly very positive and no-nonsense.
My wife has watched too much great British baking show and this sounds right up our alley
This is all from the perspective of a non-american from a country where thankfully we are still liberal at heart and only entertain some progressive ideas, instead of buying it wholesale, meaning the right has yet to completely cannibalise the government over the mistakes of the left.
- Move away from equity and return to equality of opportunity as the main goal. Equity demands lack of competition, and men love competition.
You can want everyone to receive equal opportunity and dignity, but people are not equal and will not end in the same place once the race is over. You can’t demand equality of outcome and onboard the most competitive demographic, there is a reason if the stereotype of leftist men is passive wimps. This is completely compatible with prgressive ideas, but it’s incompatible with progressive brains, apparently.
- Actually understand what intersectionality looks like, stop treating it like a hierarchy of oppression.
The core idea of intersectionality is that each demographic has its own issues and they manifest differently if more demographics overlap in the same individual (e.g. sexism against white women vs sexism against black women exhibit different tropes and connotations).
This does not mean whoever has the least minoritary traits is the most acceptable target, that is some marxist “oppressor vs oppressed” horseshit and, while it was probably the intended idea, it is massively counterproductive and doesn’t have to be the actual application of the issue.
Men have issues that women don’t have, women have issues that men don’t have. As soon as your movement decides to prioritise one they have lost the other.
The reason this does not happen with race is that no movement in the US can realistically exist politically without white people simply by virtue of how huge the white slice of the demo pie is, and because this whole thing was started by highly educated, economically mobile, overwhelingly white, college grads who live in very specific coastal bubbles, hence the endemic hatred of farmers and factory workers, the actual working class of the US, as hicks and racists, and the lionisation of serving staff like baristas and waiters (the only working class most large city dwellers ever interact with).
- Move away from “patriarchy”.
It’s just a fucking L on its face isn’t it? “Yes come join the party that thinks men being in power is the problem” fat fucking chance lol.
And when they do join, the parodies write themselves.
I don’t care if you think it’s “just a name” (especially in light of what progs consistently do over “just a name” and “just a statue” and so on) it’s a massive optics L that shows all of the horseshit about microaggressions and non-confrontational language and whatnot are entirely performative.
You have the most obvious othering language in the core ideas of the movement and then complain about microaggressions? And you wonder why people don’t take you seriously?
And while we’re on that:
- Politeness is baseline, respect is earned. Confrontation is necessary and men are more likely to thrive in confrontational spaces.
You can’t have a political movement that does not tolerate dissent and confrontation, or only tolerates it in one direction. See the implosion of the “Unfuck america tour” as a good example of this.
The whole point of politics is to create a critical mass of people who align on some goal to push for it, you don’t have to agree with them on every point, if you had enough people who agree with you, you would be already in the majority and would not need to participate in politics.
Easy example from the last decade: TERFs.
Now, I don’t like TERFs, on account of them being radfems and thus automatically hostile to me due to the circumstances of my birth (i.e. penis), but you know what? I reckon they probably want women to have better salaries and fewer barriers to entry into professional fields.
Let them force themselves into political irrelevance if they refuse to play ball, don’t make a big fucking show of kicking them out of the movement, because then you end up on the back foot of having to explain “trans women are women” to the mass population and the TERFs simply need to say “look at these brainwashed biology deniers, they think males and females have no differences” and you end up eating your own ass in public, when the point is that trans women ought to be treated as women for their own good and a more welcoming society.
(side note: if you are in that brainless chunk of progs who do believe there is no difference between the sexes, I highly encourage you to look at the world records in any discipline with easily measured metrics such as 100m dash and freestyle swimming. Not a single male record is under the women’s record, in some cases every historical male record eclipses the current female one. Males and females are different, this should be acknowledged, and it should not be a barrier to equal dignity in treatment.)
A movement that can’t include anyone but the most in-line and pure of the ideological adepts is doomed to be irrelevant, and on that the progressives have an almost complete lock.
Harsh to hear but I believe this perspective to be both true and very important to accept/understand (with the exception of the terf topic)
Keep in mind I’m not saying to accept TERFs, I’m saying to be smart about letting them cut themselves off instead of forcing them out.
Fair. IMO it depends on how much you value being morally correct vs overall effectiveness of the movement. It could be worth it to compromise the integrity slightly if it will be much more effective. Not everyone would make that trade but I’m not here to argue against people who would.
IMO it depends on how much you value being morally correct vs overall effectiveness of the movement.
And this entire thought process is why the left gets weaker every round of elections.
See for instance: Abandon Harris, a movement thought by absolute winners at the brain lottery, who thought that undermining the candidate who didn’t ban middle easterners from entering the US was the smart choice because Biden was “too lenient against Israel.”
Politics is about seizing and wielding power, morality has nothing to do with it.
For one, any grifter can pretend to be more morally correct than you or I and once they get in power they will do whatever they want anyway. I would much rather side with someone who disagrees with me on some things but does so in earnest than someone who is suspiciously always somehow more moral and more correct than me or them.
For two, morality is literally incompatible with politics, because it is downstream from the body politic.
For instance: It is considered immoral to own slaves, today. It used to be allowed and to the mores of the time, uncontroversial.
Then enough people who disagreed with that stance pushed to gain power and made it illegal, once that became the status quo for long enough it is now controversial to hold a position that was the default and viceversa.
Something becomes a matter of morality once it is no longer a matter of politics.
In practice, you don’t actually need support for all your ideas, you need enough good ideas to get you enough support that you can then push through your less popular pet issues. Even better if the pet issues themselves are popular, that’s when you get explosive successes like Trump getting re-elected by hammering the inflation button (despite anyone who knows anything about econ knowing he would be literally unable to do anything about it).
As long as people are not actively against your pet issues they’ll re-elect you just fine, that’s how croneyism skates by unnoticed.
Yes, but there is a point at whoch your movement is compromised so much that winning doesn’t matter because the common goals of the movement are no longer desirable. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that-- we’re pretty firmly in “come on guys stop bikeshedding and work together” territory-- but it is important to know that it can swing too far the other way. That’s how we got people saying “violence is bad, you have to hear the nazi out”.
there is a point at whoch your movement is compromised so much that winning doesn’t matter because the common goals of the movement are no longer desirable.
That’s why movements should be built around goals and not allegiance/morality.
“This is the movement to achieve X.”
“X has been achieved.”
“Aight, job well done, time to move on.”
This is what the right does (or tries to, anyway), and they’re eating the left alive, maybe it’s worth taking this very non-partisan strategy from their playbook?
violence is bad, you have to hear the nazi out
AKA the same provision that protects everyone with an unpopular opinion, yourself included, yes. That’s what liberal democracies do.
The state has a monopoly on violence, you don’t get to decide who doesn’t get rights, nor do the nazis.
The US is a bit of an exception obviously, you guys love your political violence (one could say you are built on it) and who am I to stop you, but Europe does not work that way and thank fuck for that, lol.
So yeah you have to let the nazi speak, that doesn’t mean you can’t talk over them, mock them, goad them into striking first so the cops will crack down on them, etc.
I’m Italian so I guarantee you I know that it’s a complex landscape to navigate, with actual fascists (the roman salute kind, not the “we’re cops and we will do our job” ““fascists””) in a lot of police strike teams, and in the current government (Thankfully I live abroad, shit’s bad at home right now), I know it’s no picnic to actually maintain a liberal society, but other countries consistently succeed, like France and the Netherlands, or the nordics.
It takes effort and a lot of education from early on, and that the population appreciates the importance of that education and the values it is supposed to impart.
Conversely it was “me ne frego” and the widespread apathy towards it that condemned italy to Mussolini’s rule, not civil debate.
Moreover, allowing and embracing political violence doesn’t work when one side is already chomping at the bit and better at it than your side, but that’s a practical consideration rather than an ethical/moral one.
Mind you this does not mean “don’t defend yourself” it means “don’t strike first”
Embrace the Roman doctrine: we will never pick up arms first, but if forced to we will only lay them second.
TERFs are “radfem” in nothing but name.
They were here before you, just because you disagree with them doesn’t make them not feminists.
This is a great example of what I meant, btw: progressives act like every protestant denomination, calling eachother “not real christians” not realising they are all the same brand of sanctimonious.
They were here before you,
Pardon?
Are you under the impression that the term “TERF” was invented in 2008 because that’s when trans exclusion became a thing?
Do you seriously think that a movement that over its lifespan at some point didn’t even include non-white women started off including non-female ones?
“Trans x are x” as a widespread progressive sociological stance is new, I don’t even know if it’s 20 years old, it may be closer to 10, even.
deleted by creator
What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist and not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology that feminism at its core has been fighting against since it’s inception, just this time aimed at trans women to protect “real women”?
I’m genuinely curious because all the advocacy I’ve seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and… Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.
What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist
The part that is your standard boilerplate second wave feminism, the only difference is how they define “woman,” which simply hasn’t changed in the last 20 odd years to conform to the mainline progressive position.
They are effectively conservative feminists, which sounds counterintuitive until you realise feminism is old enough to easily fall within the range of things that can have a conservative/progressive split.
not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology
You mean like feminism was until the adoption of intersectional sociological lenses by the progressive part of the movement? (and it arguably still is essentialist, just on qualities other than birth sex)
Cause like, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Julie Bindel, they were feminists before a lot of the feminists of today were alive, and they don’t strike me as trans allies.
I’m genuinely curious because all the advocacy I’ve seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and… Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.
You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t feminists, it just means they have different ontological positions that lead them to side with different people.
Often the enemy you know, especially one that appears (but isn’t, in the case of conservatives) on the backfoot can look positively attractive compared to the new and alien.
If anything it should tell you how essentialist and misandrist second wave feminism was that they’d draw the line at male women and female men, and not at cis conservatives.
In brief, my point is: just because it’s not your wave of feminism that you identify with, doesn’t mean your wave doesn’t directly descend from it and that it didn’t pave the way for yours.
Movements change and evolve, society as a whole was not trans inclusive at all until the late 00s, and even then it was touch and go, and it’s incredibly naïve to think that feminism, of all things, would somehow be morally lucky from its inception in the 1800s and never in ~150 years sided with the mainstream on axes other than pushing for women* to be equal to men* (*provided they are the right demographic on every other axis).
The reality of this all is rather complex but I think the greatest issue is fundamentally the empathy gap. Men’s issues are not recognized as issues, they’re just dismissed out of hand. I’m talking about the easy things like the sentencing and education gaps.
We need to start the discourse that these are very real problems that are worth addressing.
Another problem I personally run into is how it’s acceptable to discriminate against men, “kill all men” is acceptable but “kill all race” isn’t. Neither should be and we don’t recognize it as a problem, instead defaulting to arguments that are considered horrendous in another context.
Every time I have heard someone say “kill all men” I have immediately dismissed everything else they are saying because their logic is just as rotten as other racists/sexists
How did you dismiss all the leftists in one fell swoop?
If you’re spouting off “kill all men” nonsense you’re not a leftist you’re just a propaganda recycler
So 98% of Lemmy then
Thanks for confirming
Wow you restated your point and pretended it’s what I said. Very clever, you get 5 points, nobody’s ever done that before
If 98% of Lemmy wants to kill all men, that’s a pretty shit state of affairs.
If they wanted to address the education gap, wouldn’t they? Why would they want to when trades provide more money, no lost income for 4-5 years, or a crippling debt? Women are at a disadvantage there. I mean, I definitely don’t want to minimize overlooked hardships, but…
You’re paying with your body, the work can be very dangerous, and it takes a while to ramp up to decent pay. On top of that the pay isn’t always going to be better than a degree (iirc research has concluded that lifetime earnings for trades are behind degrees), ignoring countries with sensible tertiary education options.
Trades are not equivalent. And education is still a significant indicator of political alignment.
Honestly, this is a great example of the empathy gap.
What research? There are lots of folks with crippling debts. I know tons of people who will never be rid of their’s. As an engineer, I have never known job security. Who wamts to worry about losing their job every day? But I notice plenty of guys making a lot more than me since trades have a serious shortage of workers. Electricians around here charge whatever they want because there is not enough of them. Hospitals around here are bought up by one entity, so nurses can’t quit and make more money elsewhere. Teachers are quitting in droves such that it’s become a national crisis. But then there are plumbers making 6 figures.
- Stop dismissing that men have problems which require addressing
A lot of people say things like “men have it the best, they don’t need help!” That’s nonsense. Everyone who is dealing with problems and is suffering needs help. Helping men doesn’t mean you stop helping women, we should help everyone who needs help.
- Stop purity tests and infighting
Progressives today are truly awful when it comes to this. I’m not talking about including nazis, I’m talking about attacking people who agree with you on 90% of topics. Like if someone thinks trans people should be totally treated as the gender they express in every facet of society, except they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s physical sports competitions.
- Messaging needs HUGE improvement
This is another one that progressives have a terrible problem with. They do a terrible job of letting people know how they’re being helped, and they also use language that gives the impression that they’re against you. For example “the patriarchy” is a terrible term that makes men feel attacked, even though that’s not what it’s about at all. What most people actually mean to refer to is “gender norms”, meaning concepts like ‘men should fuck a lot of women and not express their emotions’. “Gender norms” is a much more accurate term and it doesn’t make men feel like they’re being attacked.
Quit trying to make young white men feel guilty for existing. I come from poor white trash. As near as I can tell, my family never benefitted from slavery in any possible way. So fuck you. I dont feel bad about something I didn’t do, no one in my family did, and we aint gonna pay for it.
I don’t know where this “white guilt” stuff comes from. I’m the same demo as you, but never felt that.
Oh boy you surely never were a part of the target then
Can you tell me more about that experience?
You are losing the class war, that’s what matters. Not you being young, or white, or a man.
The world is not America - so how come this is an issue in other places?
This white guilt argument just doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny and is just nazi propaganda. Let’s be honest here.
Do what you say you’re going to do when you get elected. Quit finding just enough no votes and making excuses. You promise, we vote, you don’t deliver. Then you ask “why does no one want to vote for us? We promised to be marginally less terrible than our opponents!”
“We promised to be marginally less terrible than our opponents!” DNC 2028
In hope I’m wrong, but we can probably start printing their yard signs now.
And the great thing is, even if that’s the full extent of their promises, democrats don’t keep their promises.