Video Discusses the Need for Men's Group to Discuss Positive Masculinity

IronGentry · 2019-08-24T10:14:51+00:00

Natalie makes good stuff, and she's one of the few "Breadtube" types who seems actually sympathetic to men's issues/men, so it's neat to see her take on things even if it does largely amount to a supportive shrug. Im kind of bummed to see people on her sub/Breadtube/etc trying to point towards r/menslib as a positive alternative masculine group. I can't see that at all, unless you consider shame and hand wringing positive masculinity.

What young, vulnerable men need is an identity that can teach them not to hate themselves, not how to hate themselves for the right reasons

serpentineeyelash · 2019-08-25T13:58:17+00:00

This video was much better than I expected, though imperfect.

Like probably most people in the gender debate, I am familiar with ContraPoints/Natalie and have watched most of her videos, but I am always unsure what to make of her. In some ways she comes across as a relatively male-friendly feminist, perhaps partly due to experiences from when she used to live as a male, and also being influenced by the ex-MRA Theryn Meyer.

But because her videos present so much self-parody and many different personalities arguing with each other, it’s often unclear exactly which statements are ironic and which are her real opinions (or if she’s even sure herself). Her style basically allows her to say controversial things without fully committing to them and therefore without overtly offending anyone (not unlike the Pick-Up Artists who she dislikes). This video is a particularly bad offender in that regard, as the entire first five minutes is all style and no substance, in an apparent attempt to virtue-signal to both sides – but it does improve after that.

Natalie surprised me by acknowledging some pretty fundamental challenges to feminist dogma. She not only quoted some statistics on male disposability, but even admitted her life has improved in various ways since she became a woman, including being viewed as deserving of help, no longer being sexually invisible, and no longer being viewed as potentially dangerous. I think she is moving the Overton window in the right direction by bringing all these male perspectives to a feminist audience who might not have considered them before.

She still downplays male issues a bit, though not as much as I expected:

She accuses male advocates of “whataboutism”, which in my opinion is just a word designed to discredit anyone who challenges propaganda against a particular group (I notice the same word is often used by neocons to defend war propaganda).
She criticizes male advocates for portraying men as victims, but that misses the point. Throughout history, even pre-feminism, victim power has usually been more in the hands of women than men, which contradicts her assumption that men are traditionally unilaterally privileged.
She mentions her experiences of male issues are only anecdotal. That’s true, but it’s important to remember that feminist theory is likewise based on similar anecdotes about women’s lived experiences.
I find it difficult to believe her claim that her ideas are taken less seriously now she’s a woman. Since she became a woman, she's gained mainstream media praise for her channel and a legion of fans who seem disturbingly cultish, worshiping her as their “queen” and “mommy”, like a left-wing equivalent of the cult of personality surrounding Jordan Peterson. Indeed, this very video is an example of a trans-woman being taken seriously saying things that were taken less seriously when cis-men said them. I admit, being taken less seriously is one of those issues reported by so many women that I think there must be something in it, but whatever it is must be more nuanced than how it is presented by Natalie and other feminists.
She says false rape accusations are over-discussed because they do not affect every man – but does she not see the connection between false rape accusations and the general prejudice that men are dangerous? It is very related to a systemic issue: society (and feminism) provides women with a ready-made narrative by which to demonize men they dislike.
She seems to contradict herself a few times on whether men are “privileged”. She admits it’s difficult to compare whether men or women have it worse, and suggests only the men on top are privileged. But at another point she describes men’s angst as related to being “the privileged class”. (And even though the men on top are privileged by their positions of authority, it may also be that historically the women married to these men benefited from sharing in their wealth without the risks of holding overt authority.)

I was expecting the video to finish with the usual platitudes that men should just support feminism and/or Marxism and that will solve all our problems. But Natalie again exceeded my expectations by breaking that narrative, despite having implicitly endorsed it in the past. She rightly points out that even if a revolutionary end to capitalism is possible, it wouldn’t address male gender issues. And she rightly points out that feminism basically just tells men to stop being “toxic”, and the idea of a movement actually by and for men is taboo on the left.

So, what do I think of Natalie’s solution that men need to create for ourselves a new positive ideal of manhood? I don’t know. On the one hand, I don’t like that people are coralled into arbitrary roles based on an accidents of birth. On the other hand, there may be reasons why men need to maintain a separate male identity, eg. men may be considered unattractive if we can’t figure out how to present ourselves in a way that taps into women’s evolved sexual instincts. So I guess maybe every man has to find some balance between those things, but I don’t know how to do that for myself let alone advise other men on it.

Moreover, a positive ideal of manhood can never be a full solution to male issues. Although it’s good that Natalie recognizes women shouldn’t lecture men on how to be men, she’s wrong to place all of the burden on men to solve men’s issues. How can that address all the prejudices and discrimination against men that Natalie acknowledged earlier in the video? To solve those issues, something has to change about 1) laws and policies on certain issues and 2) society’s attitudes and particularly women’s attitudes toward men.

NUMBERS2357 · 2019-08-28T06:02:45+00:00

A little late to the party, but I think the whole "we need a positive model of masculinity" thing is a total red herring. I don't think it's needed and it's a distraction from more pressing, more concrete things that can be done to help men.

Even if you accept the need for such a thing most discussions that follow strike me as a bunch of vague platitudes and buzzwords.

Blauwpetje · 2019-08-24T19:59:05+00:00

I hardly understand what she says, partly because of her pronunciation, partly because the 'dynamic' construction of this video, trying to be funny all the time. I too remember 2016 (and actually the years before that), the YouTube MRA's were a revelation for me, before that I just thought feminism was ok but 'flawed' but after that I gave up on feminism altogether. The way SHE talks about the YouTube MRA's makes it hard to believe she really has anything reasonable to say after that.

Title	Video Discusses the Need for Men's Group to Discuss Positive Masculinity
Author	PrincessofPatriarchy
Upvotes	11
Comments	12
Date	August 24, 2019 3:46 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/cuoj1u/video_discusses_the_need_for_mens_group_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/video-discusses-the-need-for-mens-group-to-discuss.1064540 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064540

Comments