- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/19420914
Trying to understand why I had these opinions, I recalled how much different being a man felt at 18 versus 28. I had no money which I presumed meant I had no value to the opposite sex. I wanted the company of women and girls, but I also resented them because I lacked experience in dating and my few experiences were rocky. A lot of magazines and headlines focused on the shortcomings of men and boys in the early 2010s, and it was easy for me to get negatively polarized into thinking it was a personal attack. Academic feminism did and does a much better job explaining patriarchy better than blogs and news sites which boiled down systems of sexism to individual behaviors.
My experience as a resentful teen boy wasn’t unique. It’s the same experience that millions of boys are going through, which they’d ordinarily grow out of by the time they hit their twenties. In my case, it was happening during a period of social revolution on gender and during an evolution in mass communications. Many of these early communities on Atheism, which captured me for their sensibility and anti-orthodoxy, evolved into anti-progressivism and eventually evolved into the Redpill and Manosphere which is how millions of young boys today engage with their gender. At least my period in this mindset was short lived: about two years. By the time 2016 rolled around, I had clearly lost interest in online gender wars as tyranny seemed a greater threat. I was now 24 and actively attending college; I had plenty of friendships and dating experiences with women, and that teenage resentment was forgotten.
The big crisis we’re dealing with today is that the resentment is not only not expiring when men get into their twenties, but it’s being weaponized globally by parties against men’s material interests. What young boys like me didn’t realize when we were being lectured about patriarchy and the problems of men, is that being a man is an extremely privileged position over women, we’re just not old enough to benefit from it yet. This presents a problem on how we teach oppression and discrimination to young people who have little autonomy of their own and feel bad when you imply your immutable characteristics harm people you seek validation from.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m honestly wondering if this post isn’t just missing the forest for the trees. Like, what if it really is all about just guys not getting laid?
Like, OOP goes to college, spends time with lots of women, goes to parties, and sleeps with some of them. His view is now that society is reasonably just, since he now has a reasonable expectation that he will be able to have sex.
I mean, we can think about the various manosphere spaces: the red pill - treat women badly to get sex; mgtow - give up on relationships with women and just do your own thing; incels - just give up, you were doomed to l be a virgin from the start; “male loneliness epidemic”, aka, I can’t get a girlfriend. And then we have Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson giving these men advice, which if you remove the toxicity, boils down to: stop caring about what women think of you, take care of yourself, work out, get hobbies, spend time with friends, do well in your career. Which is pretty good advice to follow if you are a man, looking for women!
And it’s not like sex is some trivial thing, either. From an evolutionary point of view, if you can’t have sex and have no expectation of being able to get it in the future, that’s a death worse than death. It is the end of your genes, which are programmed to want to continue existing even more than any individual is.
So if you’re looking to deradicalize young men, it’s possible that the solution is to just give them a straightforward path to getting some pussy.
sex, or a relationship, house, and stable income?
I feel like being able to live for longer than a month if you get sick and can’t work is a WAY larger deal for mental health than if you can have sex once in a while.
You’re fitting the problem to the things you want it to address. As someone who was formerly a young man, I can tell you that I didn’t care about owning a house, healthcare was an ephemeral thing I didn’t think about, and making fast food wages was good enough for me. But I did care a lot about the fact that I wasn’t getting laid.
You’re fitting the problem to the things you want it to address.
I mean, so are you. That’s what the whole conversation is about, adding our own views to get a better idea of the topic from all sides. You brought the topic of sex, I brought the idea of a stable life. It’s not a bad thing to bring in a different opinion.
As someone who was formerly a young man, I can tell you that I didn’t care about owning a house, healthcare was an ephemeral thing I didn’t think about, and making fast food wages was good enough for me.
As someone making fast food wages right now and is literally a young man right now a stable future is the #1 topic for me. Housing is so expensive I don’t know if I’d be able to live in the future without my parents. Wages are absolutely horrible and jobs aren’t hiring.
for context, in currently in highschool and when I get out in a month I’m concerned if scholarships fall out bc defunding education I won’t be able to go to college and my parents are also coming on rough times (personal) I’m concerned that they wouldn’t be able to support me either.
But I did care a lot about the fact that I wasn’t getting laid.
I’m actually curious and trying to learn here, how was that your main concern? Like I genuinely don’t understand how that was the biggest deal in your life at that point.
I’ve learned that i’m a LOT less sexual than a lot of my peers so I just don’t get it.
but also, completely ignoring how bad everything is, the ONLY factor that would lead me to voting for the right leaning party is probably peer pressure as I live in a conservative area and saying you vote left is kinda seen as odd.
And I really do want to have a conversation here and learn. Sorry if my earlier message came off as rude, I was kinda in a bad mood when I wrote it 😓
I thought this was really well put. The power dynamic between boys and girls is very different than between men and women. Few people explain this or make allowances for it so boys often hear about the patriarchy and it does not line up with their life experience.
What young boys like me didn’t realize when we were being lectured about patriarchy and the problems of men, is that being a man is an extremely privileged position over women, we’re just not old enough to benefit from it yet. This presents a problem on how we teach oppression and discrimination to young people who have little autonomy of their own and feel bad when you imply your immutable characteristics harm people you seek validation from.
There were some good points made, but I don’t know that this is one of them. Households with a son and daughter will still often have gender-segregated household chores for the children. The daughter will do the dishes and the son will take out trash. Different curfews or restrictions and different “talks”. Educators are generally more understanding with disruptive boys. Maybe he did not personally recognize or experience these differences, but they are present from the very beginning.
Other than that, the advice is generally “engage with different people” and that’s been pretty standard for a while, often derisively as “touch grass” or being accused of having “terminally online” takes. He also states that trumps policies are worse for men, but honestly it depends on your perspective. Clearly a lot of men are willing to sacrifice to avoid examining their positions, so if I’m a man unwilling to have my beliefs challenged, I’d rather live in trumps America where women will have to marry me because they can no longer have jobs or bank accounts then spend the time improving myself to become a worthy partner and potentially never getting there.
I am not saying that the patriarchy doesnt run deep even at that age. I’m saying that it is different and those differences are not usually what is presented to anyone at that age.
In primary school, from a dating scene perspective, girls have much more control and choice (I mean, in situations where they are not actively oppressed by family/government/etc, which again, boys are not likely exposed to). When boys are presented with explainations of the patriarchy that absolutely do not jive with the feelings of inadequacy they likely have, they probably throw out the whole idea.
I also agree that “touch-grass” is bad advice, since if that was an option, it probably would have happened already.
Solution-wise, I would love to see an organization partner with xbox/playstation online services and have problematic players referred to counseling to correct these issues (and to get their accounts unbanned).
Sadly I think you are right and some groups are totally on board with more oppression as a means to force women into situations with them. Sigh.
I wasn’t intending to imply you said anything, but the author states “we’re just not old enough to benefit from it yet” and that in itself is emblematic of a big issue when it comes to patriarchy and any other power structures. It’s difficult for people to identify it, since it becomes so ingrained.
Young boys benefit from it, but are also restricted by it, and there’s a lot of discussion about that too. Girls being told to “make me a sandwich” (or insert generationally relevant sexist remark) or being sexually harassed at school, and boys being told not to cry or that their interests are “gay” are both examples that I often see emphasized when talking to kids.
I think the author overlooking how boys benefit is part of the problem. These early issues need to be acknowledged and discussed because they help build a foundation of solidarity. If young boys are taught to notice these inequalities early, then they will be more open and able to notice them later. It will also help humanize their classmates.
I hate that all of these discussions inevitably lead to “dating”. This is not directed at you, just the issue in general. Girls are generally the ones engaging in selection, yes, but the fact that this is the issue is kind of the problem in itself. Boys are not owed a girlfriend and their self worth should not be tied to having one. If they have feelings of inadequacy, they will not be solved by getting into a romantic relationship. I feel like no one is talking about why these young boys are striving for romantic relationships to the point that they feel like failures without one. Society is telling boys that they need to value themselves based on their ability to obtain women. This is not a dating market issue. It’s a self esteem/self worth issue, and women are neither the cause nor the solution.
“Touch grass” etc is not at its core bad advice, it just feels hostile and is more difficult than the alternative (doing nothing). Having IRL friends and engaging in activities locally is a great way to build confidence and self worth, but it’s not as fun to start as a video game. I don’t know how the partnership you’re suggesting would work, but I think therapy in general is good, and serves as a kind of alternative to building community, because you get a confidant that provides some pushback the way a normal and diverse friend group might. It’s a good option, but I think less alienation in general is always a good way to build a robust defense to bigotry.
I had no money which I presumed meant I had no value to the opposite sex. I wanted the company of women and girls, but I also resented them because I lacked experience in dating and my few experiences were rocky. A lot of magazines and headlines focused on the shortcomings of men and boys in the early 2010s, and it was easy for me to get negatively polarized into thinking it was a personal attack.
This here is it. It’s where you place blame, not just what you’re exposed to. I’m an “uneducated” worthless factory schmuck, and perpetually single as they pointed out is the trend, but I’ve never blamed women for my failure. I’m worthless and that isn’t their fault, it’s mine.
“There are plenty of fish in the sea” so why would anyone with two functioning braincells go for someone like me when there are so many better options out there especially considering the fucked up economic situation our parents and grandparents have left for us? No on in their right mind would look at someone as worthless as me and choose me over someone else who has a similar personality, but actually has a career worth a shit.
That’s not the fault of women at all, that’s just logical. I may be funny at times, nice, and at least as intelligent as a monkey, but so are millions of other people who also can contribute to a fulfilling life without economic struggle. Why sign up for potential hardship when you don’t have to? Tie that into the world of dating apps where your profile is your resume and you’re part of the buffet table of choices easily passed over for the more appetizing, fulfilling meals. It just makes sense.
It’s the entitled, inflated ego, self centered people who go and blame women’s choices as some sort of “problem” because they weren’t chosen. The phrase “get good” comes to mind, if I’m not good enough that’s my problem not theirs.
I’m sure you’re not worthless, but you make a fair point, that it takes a certain temperament not to be able to see the situation objectively but to put all the blame for your own misfortunes on women.
Many of these early communities on Atheism, which captured me for their sensibility and anti-orthodoxy, evolved into anti-progressivism and eventually evolved into the Redpill and Manosphere which is how millions of young boys today engage with their gender.
Everybody says I’m crazy when I point out that skeptic spaces in the 2010s were just as vulnerable as gamer spaces to hateful ideology. Islamophobia and Western Chauvinism were the red-pills of r/atheism.
In Reeve’s book “Black pill”, she notices a pattern in the alt-right leadership of terminally-online young men who are socially awkward, good test-takers, and high-IQ*, while having little academic, material, or dating success. Alt-right ideology was heavily correlated to autism. But Reeves points out that these were largely self-diagnosed “autists” who “identify” as having the one disability popularly conceived as a mental advantage. As opposed to all the other disabilities that make your life unworthy of living.
*IQ is bullshit
“I have autism. No, not the kind that used to get you locked in asylums and sterilized, the kind that has careers and scientists like Bazoopers Big Bang character. I can’t even buy a Corvette to trick tradwifes into marrying me. No, I don’t have a diagnosis, but I did get 120 on my IQ test™.”
Would people on the spectrum actually have an advantage on an IQ test? I usually think of those as being “able to synthesize social knowledge and logic” tests… and while most autistic can focus on things they’re interested in, the lack of the social aspect is kind of what defines autism.
Seems to me these people grew up hearing they were special, but didn’t have to put in any work, and were given excuses for why some people may not pander to their wants.
It depends, I think. Not everyone on the spectrum is a Shake & Bake egghead with complex math pouring out of their ears. That doesn’t stop people from pinning it to their chests as a badge of pride though, even if it’s only self-diagnosed.
I commented on this a while back but folk were quick to dismiss
One subject of the doc explains his descent. It is almost exactly mine. Only these days it is hyper stimulated, laser targeted, data driven, psychological warfare, wrapped in polished, billionaire backed campaigns.
It comes at you from wherever you are.
Crypto bros. Health/hydro bros. incel bros. Christian bros. Muslim bros. Rogan bros. Peterson bros. Elon bros. Tech bros. Anon bros. etc.
By the time a lot of people realize what’s happened, if ever, they’re already in too deep.
That was a surprisingly good read. Not surprising, just insightful and well said.
