576
‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
576 points (93.9% liked)
News
23014 readers
12 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lack of actually good and well-known male role models leads to scum filling the vacuum. Disproportional push in favor of girls and to the detriment of boys is also to blame. Doesn't look like it's gonna fix itself anytime soon though.
Boys traditionally are taught from a very young age that uncompromising, and 'unfeeling' toxic males are what we need to look up to. So that's what they gravitate towards. It's a whole other discussion about unburdening and unpacking toxic views in men that is the core issue actually at play.
Women pushing for equal rights isn't to blame for men not unpacking their own toxic baggage. If no one is standing up for boys look at the men. It's not girls' fault that no one is trying to reachout to troubled boys. The ones who are reaching out are toxic gross assholes like Tate or Rogan who are using these boys as a means to line their bank accounts.
Social inequality is never going to fix itself. There isn't a single issue in the world that is going to just fix itself.
You forgot Peterson in this Unholy Trinity of Toxic Masculinity
How anyone heard this man's voice and decided he was one of their "Alphas" is a mystery.
Also these nut jobs like to pretend that these mythical heroic figures built civilization with their bare hands instead of being lucky enough to be born with a whip in their hand and slaves to use it on.
Damn me for wanting the right to my body in an anti abortion state.
I'm fully pro-abortion, pro reproductive rights, pro trans rights. I don't know where you felt I implied otherwise. Ill gladly clear it up if possible.
Nah i agree with you. Just being sarcastic, and phrasing it badly and exhausted. And concerned with privacy in an age where nothing is private and worried about my younger relatives who somehow have less rights then I did ten years ago. Then I read articles like this where the title could be phrased differently because I would consider a sex trafficker a problem.
Feminism when women have issues in society: "Men, you must fix this! Or else you are an evil person!"
Feminism when men have issues in society: "Ew, sort your own shit out, loser males"
Gee, I wonder why fewer men are identifying as feminists nowadays
That's not what they said. You didn't just simplify it by changing the words, you changed the words.
I'm a feminist. And a single father to a future man. Poster is right. I put energy into teaching my son how to elevate women. I also teach him self worth, healthy masculinity, and loving himself.
You just hate women. There's no other reason to put energy into posts like this. If it's because you're sad and lonely and feel left behind, I'm sorry. I'd be happy to talk to you about it.
I don't hate women, but I dislike feminists. And I get really angry when feminists try to claim a monopoly on morality. I guess you could say it triggers me. Feminists don't care about men's issues. At best they only give lip service.
There's this popular sense of "if you care about making society better, you're a feminist". But feminism is solely concerned with making women's position better. Which, due to how discriminated against women have been, comes out to much the same thing most of the time. But not ALL of the time, and when there's a gap between "what's good for women" and "what's good for society", there's nothing filling that gap. No group to turn to. Any time anyone tries they get co-opted or shut down by feminists, or they tap into right-wing misogyny to completely defy feminism.
Yeah, that angers me. Men trying to better themselves are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The people you're referring to aren't feminists. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that no one who's never encountered a piece of feminist theory isn't one. I mean, how could they be?
It's like calling yourself a Christian without reading the Bible, or a star wars fan who's only ever seen start Trek, or whatever.
I understand how you can associate the kind of shrieking misandry you often come across as feminism, since the kindd of people (usually women) who are all about this are very angry and very vocal.
Actual feminists - the ones seeking to gain a more cogent understanding of the dynamics of gender and out of that create a more suitable world, don't sound like they. That wave crashed and broke on the shore. Sure there are people who call themselves feminists who want nothing more than to replace patriarchy with matriarchy but they're rarely the ones doing any actual work towards creating better gender relations.
I'll give you a tipe that will help you spot the difference pretty quickly: do they ever mention men, at all, in a way that isn't dismissive or angry?
If they don't, then chances are they've never read anything about feminism that they didn't see online. I think most of the ones that have read a book before would agree with you that it's important that men have a voice, and many of them are sounding the same alarms you're sounding.
When feminism talks about patriarchy they're not talking about emasculating men - just that it's high time tried looking at alternatives to power structures that only benefit a very small percentage of people at the expense of everyone else.
Patriarchy is men fighting tooth and nail when we don't have to. It's being told by society to shut up and get on with it. That your humanity makes you weak.
I'm sure if you could approach the theory with an open mind you'd be shocked at how much of it you agree with. Fucked if I know how you would make it past the refuse pile of shrieking blue haired misandrists though.
There are hundreds of millions of Christians who have never read the Bible.
You can't pretend that the vast majority of adherents to an ideology are not true adherents to that ideology. If you want to get semantic, reframe everything I've said to say "people who call themselves feminists but have never studied feminist theory" rather than "feminists".
Now do you agree with me?
This seems a little disingenuous considering that the vast majority of Christians at least have memorized some scripture, so they know all the greatest hits. OP's point is if someone can't tell you a wit about feminist ideological literature, or name any hidtorically noteworthy figures of the movement then they're probably not feminists
I don't think most people could name important figures, but I think most everyone could relate a list of things women used to not be able to do that now they can do. But regardless, the analogy is breaking down a bit. There are still plenty of Christians who know nothing about the Bible or the history of the religion (most people who do learn about it tend to lose their faith lol).
So you think the feminist you replied to doesn't care about men's issues?
I don't presume to speak for any one individual.
You made a sweeping statement about what you think all (or effectively all) feminists believe. Why is asking about what you think a recent, specific person believes, somehow over the line?
Because it's easy to know what a movement believes in general, but it's almost impossible to know what a person believes unless you know them very well personally?
Why is it that every time I come on lemmy I end up explaining something so simple it should be self explanatory?
Because you're wrong a lot, and Dunning-Kruger effect...?
Only to serve their own purposes. An ends to a means. Feminism is not about men.
?
As a man, any ideology which stands against toxic masculinity or putting men in cognitive boxes helps men. Tearing down traditional gender roles absolutely fits that description imo.
I have never felt stuck between a rock and a hard place. In fact, the ethics of the question could not be more obvious to me. Feminism calls on me(n) to be authentic and to deny precisely the kind of existential bad faith which puts men into boxes. If you want to be in a box, that's on you. If you want to project that onto others, that's toxic.
Sure, I agree, mostly. But men need more than what feminism offers, and not all that feminism offers is good, for men or for equality.
Where do you find positive male role models?
Feminism isn't women asking men to fix their problems. It's asking men to simply treat them the same so they can fix their own problems. And it's not even fully just men, but the patriarchy which if you don't know the difference then you need to figure that out before you start making broad sweeping generalizations of feminism.
Except feminism is also about fixing male problems. Every single problem men face would be fixed if we got equal rights. For example one of those most prevelant problems that men face is discrimination in family court. Men almost always get screwed when it comes to parental rights. This stems from the old patriarchal view that men should be working and women taking care of the children. When divorce was first legalized courts gave the women custody of the children so men could be free to be men with out the burden of children. Now, men have grown and are starting to realize they want to be fathers. They want families. But due to old patriarchal ideals and ingrained 'traditions', often not even conscious decisions, men get screwed when it comes to parenting rights.
This reaches across all feminist ideals. Men just dont want to hear it.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. It's a cute saying but it's utter horseshit. Feminists give lip service to male problems. Let's take your own example of family court. Where's the big feminist push to fix it? Because feminists are supposedly so concerned with equality.
"I don't know off the top of my head of any feminist court reform attempts so obviously there are none."
Get over yourself
Okay, results of an ecosia search for "feminists family court":
National Organization for Women: "There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country." Clicking through the related links mentions men only as abusers.
Medium article: "Why Did Feminists Erase Motherhood in Family Court?" an article explicitly attacking feminist "equality theory" for not granting preferential treatment to women in custody hearings, and actually recommending that women pretend to be victims to get preferential custody, as is their god-given right.
Everydayfeminism: "The Truth About Father Bias in Family Courts". An article that I think must be written by an algorithm...one of the first sentences is "It’s true that mothers are more likely to receive custody of their children in a divorce. But the source of the bias is not in the courts – it’s in the marriage.". Then the first section is what men's rights activists get wrong about custody statistics. Then, in a total non sequitur, the author says "So if the bias against fathers is not coming from the court system, where is it coming from?" despite never actually showing that the bias is not coming from the court system what the hell.
r/askfeminists: "What Do Feminists Think of the Statement "Family courts should not favor women in custody disputes."? Tagged as "low-effort/antagonistic", hilariously enough. Top responses: 1. It's a myth. 2. Also, why don't men demand paternity leave? 3. It's a myth.
momsforsharedparenting: "How Feminists Divorce". Article encouraging split parenting, and only accepting alimony/child support temporarily until you can get back on your feet. Explicitly calls out existing prevalent attitudes about divorce and child custody as a "sexist mess".
alternet: "How Family Courts are Skewed Against Women". Starts again with the "it's a myth" thing, then veers off into talking about abuse. Doesn't explicitly say that all men are abusers, but that's the tone.
Quick note about the "it's a myth" thing: a lot of feminists are saying "the majority of custody cases are decided out of court" and using that as evidence that a) the courts aren't biased, and b) if women mostly have custody it must be because that's what men want, since it was decided out of court. They miss the glaring obviousness of a man facing massive legal expenses just to have a family court tell him he can't get full custody, or even worse, risking having no custody. Most lawyers will advise men to settle out of court. In other words, this is a convenient statistic to dodge the inherent bias in the courts, which is the cause of the statistic.
Anyway, to sum up: two articles deflecting into talking about abusers, one article that completely ignores men except as abusers, one article supporting equality, and one forum full of responses dismissing or belittling the issue. And one article that argues against feminism and in favor of some kind of right wing tradwife insanity.
Sure doesn't look like any real reform efforts? Ya got 1 out of 6 there.
I'm sorry one Google search didn't bring up populist topics you where looking for. Just because family law isn't on the forefront of the general feminist agenda doesn't mean there isn't attempts at reform or, has been in the past. It's very obvious your entire concept of feminism is rooted in ignorance at best, a misinformation at worse.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3194962
Here's a paper explaining how feminism has changed family. Giving many modern (1960 onward)examples.
The paper you linked seems to imply otherwise
and
I suppose it's fair to say that my issue is overwhelmingly with 3rd or 4th wave feminism, rather than the older generations. And to get even more specific, "popular" feminism, aside from the theorists that no one listens to anymore. 3rd wave feminism marked a massive decentralization of the feminist movement, and now what ordinary women think matters a lot more than it used to. Yes, second-wave feminism made great strides towards equality and egalitarianism, but that just doesn't seem to be anywhere on the radar for modern feminists. At least not when it comes to areas that men are disadvantaged.
I'll concede that yes, in the past feminists have done great things for men and women alike.
Yes the paper is examples of both, I specifically choose it so you couldn't claim it was biased.
You think the people second-wave feminists had to fight against for equality sat around arguing, "Well, the first wave feminist made great strides but these new ones just want to ruin men"?
You can keep pushing the goal posts. First it's all feminism and now it's "oh okay just the new ones". All feminists want equality. 2nd wave, 3rd wave, and the current 4th wave.
Being a man who has had to do the inner work to break through my own toxicity I understand that feeling that comes with being surrounded by feminist anger. It seems isolating because men have issues too. Men hurt. We suffer the most homelessness. We suffer from the most suicide rates. Male disposability is a huge problem that often gets overlooked. But shitting on feminism isn't the answer. A marginalized group struggling for equality isn't your enemy. The patriarchy is the reason for all those problems. Infact, after digging through my own shit and starting to understand other people's plights has just made me feel closer to everyone and made me realize the isolating feeling wasn't coming from feminism but from my own views. If you want to discuss feminism further I'll gladly in private, but I think I'm done with the back and forth on here. Take care, friend.
No, it's not. It won't help men. We need a strong, positive, male movement. But we do need feminism to get out of the way and stop pretending to care. Either that or start actually being egalitarian.
Fair point, I've never looked specifically for that, let me do some googling.
This...isn't accurate. When divorce was first legalized, the courts tended to give custody to whoever held the most wealth (usually the father), as they would be best able to materially take care of children. What you might describe as early proto-feminists pushed to flip that around which led to the tender years doctrine (essentially that a child needs it's mother) and the idea that it didn't matter who could best materially take care of a child, we can simply transfer wealth from the other parent on pain of jail if needed. Decades later, that idea in turn became part of "patriarchy" when women having careers became more normal, leading to the current scenario in most places in the US where the policy is to go with whatever biases the judge in question has (which tends to lean closer to tender years than the opposite due to social inertia).
There have been moves to make starting from a position of equal custody and moving from there if there's a good reason to a thing, but this often gets protested, usually by feminists (see Kentucky).