Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to posit a conspiracy. Why not just refute those premises you disagree with?
How is this conspiracy, I am curious. I can literally see it happening.
Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
171–180 of 1001 posts
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. The history of the feminist men's movement was the first target of the MRM. They are very good propagandists. Even the name Men's Rights Movement sets up the opposition with feminism perfectly. But let's never forget that we were and can be allies.
> But let's never forget that we were and can be allies. Can you share some examples? Honest question, I've never seen this happen in modern day America (it's usually just one side taking and taking instead of give and take). Based on what you wrote the men's circles you talk about were probably influenced by Sterling Institute, Mankind Project, and the mythopoetic men's movement. I've attended related events in the…
> Men's rights have been denigrated to the point my younger male (Western) friends are Andrew Tate fans because there isn't anything else left.
OMG, yes. The MRM has successfully redefined the men's movement to be regressive not productive. Any discussion of men's issues has to refer back to this body of worthless propaganda. But you know, we don't actually have to take the bait. Just as that scientist doesn't actually have to debate vaccines with jackass Joe Rogan. If he wants to learn something he can read a book like a normal person.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but here's a few points off the top of my head.
* Intersectional feminism is a powerful frame. When we look at the places where sexism and classism intersect, for example, then we can begin to explain the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are men. We can see ways that careerist academic feminism fails those who don't have such constraints. And we can see how popular working class feminist movements can benefit from the research that more privileged feminists have had the freedom to do.
* Men who are open to feminist critiques don't often do the research. We don't read feminist authors. We don't know the history of the struggle, nor of men's role in feminism. Second-wave feminism started with consciousness raising groups. Maybe we men could do some self-educating and soul searching.
* First world feminists need to accept leadership from feminists in poorer countries. There is so much right going on with feminism in places like Mexico. These men and women are confronting millennia of machismo. How do they do it? We should know.
* Men need our own organizations. Who are the groups working on paternal rights? I don't know. Are there any? Can we start one? If the MRM is about whining about feminism. A real men's movement could be about actual organizing. We used to hand out anti-circumcision flyers at 24th and mission. We got some weird looks, but even the MRM has carried on the work we started in their ineffective pissy way.
* Feminist men need a popular social media presence. We have ceeded the space to reprobates and literal criminals. Rather than engaging in tit-for-tat with MRM people, we should address regular, reasonable men who might be open to us if we made a reasonable effort. We need to accept that we have dropped the ball and that that the growth of the MRM is significantly our fault. We were too quiet.
* That said, what I don't think we need are sites like "We Hunted the Mammoth" which are about ridiculing the MRM. This is an example of stooping to their level. When we engage with the MRM, we neglect our organizing. They know this, which is why they constantly bait us into making it all about them. Similarly democrats fail by harping on all the stupid things republicans do. We should be focused on our own failures and solutions. Let the idiots argue amongst themselves.
* Feminist men need to be able to critique other feminists. The movement gets plenty wrong. We need to feel free to call that out even when doing so invites blowback from other sectors of the movement. In the past, feminist men were too afraid to confront bullshit in the movement. We deferred too much to women. That needs to stop.
When MRM people bring up straw men like "Why are there no domestic violence shelters for men? See? Feminists hate men." Feminists often respond, "Feel free to get to work cleaning up your own mess." So let's do that. Let's get to work. We're way behind, but there's no time like the present.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to posit a conspiracy. Why not just refute those premises you disagree with?
How is this conspiracy, I am curious. I can literally see it happening.
1. Who is doing the funding?
2. How are they doing the funding?
3. What message are they spreading, and what proof do you have the message has an effect?
Calling it a conspiracy theory does not mean it is instantly wrong, but it is a correct label - the accusation is hidden (or perhaps not, apparently it's obvious) wealthy foreign funders controlling American society. If that doesn't look like a conspiracy theory (which again, does not mean it's wrong immediately!), then I don't know what you expect.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfortunate that you're (willfully?) uninformed to such a degree that you perceive these passages as slighting your identity or something, but what they're saying isn't controversial scientifically.
The quoted paper in the article is from a psychiatrist with a PhD in philosophy debating to himslef whether "maleness is a genetic disorder." He spends the whole article talking about how boys get sick more often than girls, which is only true until puberty at which point the opposite is true. He then shifts to life expectancy and suicide. So if we define being "fragile" as "shorter life excpectany" then "the human m…
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cosby's criminal conviction(s)[1] undermined much of what he championed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_case...
I don't see it that way. You've fallen for a tu quoque fallacy. To say that Cosby was hypocritical doesn't seem to devalue the merits of his message: that men need to step up, that fathers need to stop being absent, take some responsibility for the dignity of women and children. If anything, it makes it even more poignant. Haven't you ever seen a man in prison, pleading with his son not to turn out like him? Does the…
Did bill cosby ever take responsibility for being one of the most prolific serial rapists in history?
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, this is a plot point in a very popular Chinese-language sci-fi novel called Death’s End. Humanity is deliberately nudged to take on more feminine qualities to make them a less effective fighting force against a colonizing species. The author had to run his book by the CCP - you get the sense this hints at an accepted strategy in the Chinese mainland. It’s an interesting read.
Lol this is Alex Jones crap. "The globalists are making their plans public in popular media".
Also it's complete nonsense because if anything, the CPC is afraid of those trends happening:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effemina...
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#178Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#179My impression is, men are stuck in a world where they are told not to be men. Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cosby's criminal conviction(s)[1] undermined much of what he championed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_case...
I don't see it that way. You've fallen for a tu quoque fallacy. To say that Cosby was hypocritical doesn't seem to devalue the merits of his message: that men need to step up, that fathers need to stop being absent, take some responsibility for the dignity of women and children. If anything, it makes it even more poignant. Haven't you ever seen a man in prison, pleading with his son not to turn out like him? Does the…
>>Haven't you ever seen a man in prison, pleading with his son not to turn out like him? Does the father's murder conviction undermine his admonition against violence?
Except, as others would argue, a more similar analogy would be a man in prison continually protesting his innocence. In that situation, I'm not sure that the man would be telling his son to do anything differently without an admission of guilt, except perhaps to be very cautious in their dealings with women. The point remains that the drama and conviction(s) surrounding Bill Cosby's numerous sexual assaults caused him to be an ineffective messenger even if the underlying message remains sound.