Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've come around to replace 'insert group name' with the word Jews and see how it sounds.
[flagged]
> Men as a whole class will never be rounded up and slaughtered
Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
291–300 of 1001 posts
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#292I'm mid 30s now and my childhood is full of instances of me being treated with contempt for being a boy by my teachers and female peers. Like, outright mocking in ways by teachers that in retrospect I would consider nearly traumatic and abusive. Maybe public, unashamed contempt is more recent?
Indeed. It isn't a new thing.
I worked in a place a long while ago, being the only male in that department.
Everyone was nice and we did our jobs.
Over time I discovered 'rumors' about me from people outside the department. I'll call these people, the observers. They had no interactions with our team, aside from seeing who worked in our office as they walked past.
It was quite concerning that people would assume the situation meant anything but myself working with a team of peers.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seinfeld is one of the few sitcoms where a female character is as flawed as the men. You couldn't even do that show today. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Succession? Yellow Jackets? The Righteous Gemstones? Beef? White Lotus? House of The Dragon? You could argue about percentages but it is in fact extremely easy to do a show with flawed female characters today.
Interesting, maybe: Are any of those women not white? Aside from Beef, which I'm not sure counts as much since the actor was also the writer and the show doesn't have any main characters that aren't asian.
What does race of women have to do with the emotional needs of men?
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#294Boys not only need emotional support, they need a strong role model, a leader, that provides guidance.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
:%s/men/jews/g Doesn’t seem ok now does it? Because no matter what it’s not ok to call for the death of any group. JFC why is this is hard?
The distinction is that Jews can and indeed repeatedly have been rounded up and slaughtered. Not something that will ever happen to 'men' as a whole class (who would do it? Women?)
Androcide is a common historical tactic in war, most recently exemplified in the Anfal Genocide.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#296It is absolutely true that boys have been neglected. But the contempt of men is a recent phenomenon. Feminism has a great deal to do with it, demonizing masculinity by construing all men as brutes and promoting the false doctrine that men are unnecessary, that women are self-sufficient, that the patriarchy is some kind of evil oppressive thing. All of that is false. Men and women are complementary , which is to say t…
> There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.
I don't think it's that simple. The fact that women give birth, have periods, and have a hormonal cycle that has wide ranging impact upon their psyche and decision making processes also has probably had a major impact on most cultures trending patriarchal.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last year there was some graffiti near my house: "Trans rights are human rights!" Okay, fair enough. Then a few metres later, in the same colour and obviously by the same person: "Kill all men!" People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't. But it's not exactly positive, is it?
[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I think a lot of people who don't see themselves as "biased" still carry a lot of bias when it comes to gender, and it has an impact. ... > toxic masculinity Maybe we could make progress by tabooing words that frame being male as a bad thing?
The term "toxic masculinity" doesn't imply that masculinity is inherently toxic any more than the term "burnt toast" implies that toast is inherently burnt. Toxic masculinity refers specifically to expressing and enforcing masculinity in a way that's harmful (to men as well as women). Teaching boys to epxress masculinity through strength, assertiveness, self-reliance, etc. is totally healthy in moderation. Teaching b…
And yet when people talk about negative ways to express and enforce feminitity, they never seem to use the phrase "toxic femininity".
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tate has a following because anybody more mild or less delusional will just get shouted down by vocal radicals who have no concept of why lost men gravitate toward people like Tate in the first place. Anybody that exists in the space he does will be called an incel-adjacent far-right radical regardless of how reasonable what they're saying is, and the only winning move there is to just say that detractors are agents…
I think Jordan Peterson is doing a decent job at this though, his stance on helping young men is quite similar to Tate's, albeit less delusional.
Jordan Peterson's focus on trans people/fat women instead of men's issues is hella distracting though
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#300It is absolutely true that boys have been neglected. But the contempt of men is a recent phenomenon. Feminism has a great deal to do with it, demonizing masculinity by construing all men as brutes and promoting the false doctrine that men are unnecessary, that women are self-sufficient, that the patriarchy is some kind of evil oppressive thing. All of that is false. Men and women are complementary , which is to say t…
> There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.
Maybe in a society where leadership is based on challenges of physical strength (i.e. 1v1 combat for the right to rule). But that hasn’t been true of most cultures for millennia. It goes deeper than that.