~ archived since 2018 ~

Can we expand this sub?

Billydee23- · 2024-05-11T19:10:41+00:00

I feel like this is the only social network that has this type of community, but it shouldn't be exclusive to only here. We need to spread the word on...

Billydee23-

May 11, 2024

67 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Can we expand this sub?
Author	Billydee23-
Upvotes	67
Comments	25
Date	May 11, 2024 7:10 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cporlj/can_we_expand_this_sub/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/can-we-expand-this-sub.1518246 https://theredarchive.com/post/1518246

Comments

[–]MannerNo7000 21 points22 points23 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Billydee23-[S] 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MannerNo7000 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintraining 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

i think smallness is ideal for the next couple of years till this sub naturally outgrows its current state. Your going a path where you wanna jump this sub into a full scale movement or international online talk space like AWDTSG. But us dudes are so far from being organized unlike our female counterparts, that you'll burn this good spot on the internet out and lose the single gem left online, particularly on reddit.

To achieve what you desire, i think we need a place in academia first. We already have black males studies, which is an amazing foundation but limited for obvious reasons. After that, we have a major issue of a lacking of men in sociology, psychology, and anthropology (all of which are strongly feminist and essential to understanding gender) most men go down the STEM route tho, i mean, honestly most men here are in STEM according to a recent survey (linky). This is not conducive to a movement that needs sociological, anthropological, criminological, and psychological knowledge and credentials to solidify the bulwark of its arguments. Men's ultimate flaw is there lack of desire to understand themselves, this is our absolute death knell and I'll die repeating this. Feminist on the other hand? There is a reason they have been able to organize women so well.

After fixing our collective flaw, we need media access, marketability, witty tweets, books, movies, theory and philosophy, collective narcissism (unironically). In short, men need an aesthetic. That's how we make our issues trendy and for cool kids (just like feminism did), everything after that is maintainance.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

The reason you don't see many men in the humanities who are open to men's issues (save, perhaps, philosophy) is because of how heavily they indoctrinate you into feminism. A degree in humanities is essentially nothing more than certification as a Maoist Red Guard of metamodern ultraconstructivist ideology (with subconscious sex essentialist characteristics LMAO), but well-fed, spoiled, and slightly more literate. 95%+ of men going into sociology with an attitude initially favourable towards men's issues are probably lost causes once they graduate.

On the other hand, STEM, though its culture is being slowly encroached on by feminism, will never be able to accommodate feminism in the subject matter itself for obvious reasons. It will never become as rife with intellectual corruption as the social "sciences" are, and therefore will not perpetuate inherently dishonest attitudes towards learning about, understanding, and engaging with the world. It teaches you to think critically using objective criteria rather than subjective experiences; to employ nuanced intuition to formulate novel hypotheses; and to rigorously question and try to understand the assumptions one makes about the world. It's a skillset that, in the right circumstances, tends to exorcise the spectre of feminism. By the nature of the subject matter, the field also disconnects you somewhat from society, so that you can see it more clearly as an observer, rather than as a participant.

It is not an exaggeration to say that doubting the hypotheses of feminism has become taboo in the west and a deeply disturbing enterprise. Unless you have personally been targeted by misandry, it takes logical discipline and intellectual bravery to discover the ills of feminism, and even more to begin to acknowledge that men might be disadvantaged. That makes it even less surprising that most of us are in the very field that has the most respect for knowledge and truth (and it may also explain why labour, services, etc. are not as popular among us as STEM).

Whereas bobalib humanities majors have a tendency to treat hypotheses and systems as physical truths, we understand that these are nothing but models used to describe matter in motion, and are hence more open to critiquing it. The "scientific" parts of humanities investigate phenomena which they themselves defined and readily alter to support prefabricated conclusions, which may or may not even correspond to actually extant things; whereas we investigate and work with shit that mother nature and father time defined themselves, taking especial care not to distort the picture with imprecise descriptions, mathematical or linguistic. And we take that attitude with us when we ruminate on sociological and political issues. We start our investigations from the fundaments, from first principles, such as moral axioms; they start theirs from mere appearances. E.g., they do not observe double standards between the genders where we do, because while we always keep in mind the precedence of the fundamental moral norm of equality before others, and use it to newly assess the situation at hand, their assessment of the same situation begins with uncritical assumptions about the intent and character of the man and woman, corrupted by emotion and the prefab constructs with which they assess the example.

I have absolutely no faith in the capacity of modern humanities departments and scholars to produce any truly profound mainstream work on men's issues, unless there are major changes to the practice of the social "sciences", their theoretical rigour, and the general culture of the humanities. Science was derived from natural philosophy; it used to mean logically rigorous examination of empirical reality using the scientific method. Mere usage if the scientific method does not mean that a field is a science capable of producing valid empirical knowledge--you could literally slap the scientific method onto an astrological interpretation of astronomy that makes no causal claims or claims about first principles, and I doubt anyone would consider that truly scientific. Not ensuring that the phenomena they're investigating is actually empirically extant or at the least correlates well with some empirical marker is how they get away with so much intellectual corruption and why contemporary social scientific theory and research cannot be relied upon. We'll have to do the dirty work ourselves.

Sociology is not some fundamental physics of society; you don't need to study some sort of formal logic from the ground-up to be able to even begin to understand an average sociology paper. Anyone with a slightly above average intellect can produce sociological theories and corroborate them, and I have especial faith in the competence of us philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, technologists, and doctors--far more faith than I reserve for brainwashed radlib mouthpieces, the greater number of whom are midwits with little intellect to speak of. There is a phenomenon with physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians going on to practice totally different fields--economics, geology, etc. Our capacity for critical thought makes us adaptable.

[–]Taco_ma 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintraining 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintraining 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

EDIT: will add links later, reddit is poo and I put too many link to all the mentioned scholars and their work. EDIT2: links added

I appreciate you making my brain feel tiny. And I'm very aware of the issue of indoctrination and alienation within the humanities. I was watching a primatological lecture, and in it the prof (male) literatelly made jokes about men not showing up the next day after he went on to say something like "so now that we know men are afraid of their wives" when he was talking about women's experience with DV, but at no point did he mention men's experience with DV or at least use some statistics as contrasts.

I have absolutely no faith in the capacity of modern humanities departments and scholars to produce any truly profound mainstream work on men's issues, unless there are major changes to the practice of the social "sciences", their theoretical rigour, and the general culture of the humanities.

I think this is a bit harsh to the humanities as a guy who wishes he could be there, though unfortunately I've never been nor feel I have the mental capacity for university/college/higher education/etc.

I do agree with the idea of inabilities to produce something mainstream, but that is not necessery to whether or not there is a conversation.

Tommy Curry for example is a black male studies scholar, the place in the humanities we do have, and he recently had a decolonialism talk ten days ago titled: "Feminism - An Integral Tool of (Neo-)Colonialism" (1:30:55). This is his go to, and pretty much sums up what he really wants to say to the world. He's allowed to do this because it targets white feminism at large which is already put under heat by black feminist and the like. Other black male scholars are also on youtube too, such as T. Hasan Johnson and others apart of the Black Manosphere (which is far more intellectual than the white manopshere, I must add). The only problem is they don't get much light, i've never seen these black scholars talked about outside of LWMA and even in LWMA Curry is mentioned in passing as a rec, not really analyzed.

In the realm of psychology you have a british guy, John Barry, who manages The Centre For Male Psychology, and has many papers in google scholar to look through, one of which deals with terminology like Positive/Toxic/Traditional Masculinity (though I can't find the paper rn). Another guy is american, Michael E. Addis whose written up a call for a new direction in the study of male depression (2008), and has also written a book in 2011, Invisible Men, which goes over how men rarely talk about their issues, have inabilities to talk, all because we don't talk to them about it. And how a lot of men have varieties of awful stories in their childhood of neglect that they laugh about as adults (at least this is what I remember from it).

Adam Jones is a male scholar in genocide studies, he's like the white man's Tommy Curry. He's written easy to disgest articles like Gendercide, and has writen an introduction: Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, as well as this really good introductory lecture (1:02:49). And also did a talk on indigenous men in canada with Canadian Center for Men and Families, which was an org closely tied to MRAs once upon a time, iirc. He's important to me because I think there is a very strong connection between the mistreatment of men and genocide, especially within just talking about the mistreatment of men by feminism.

In Anthropology I've found a guy named Kim Hill, where he was in a debate I suppose with another anthropologist (clearly a feminist type), Moving beyond Stereotypes of Men’s Foraging Goals (2010).

So there's clearly stuff going on in the humanities, but I only see crickets when it comes to any of these characters. So we can't just run around saying, the humanities will never produce something good, though it is quite dystopian.

This is why I said, "Men's ultimate flaw is there lack of desire to understand themselves, this is our absolute death knell and I'll die repeating this." Men are just not self-indulgent enough to care about this, so I suppose its more of a compliment then me showing disappointment. But the ways in which men seems to be functioning is less of an all men liberation orientation and more of what you see out of the right-leaning anti-woke dipshittery of "if it sounds feminist then its evil" with an added mix of hyper fixation onto just heterosexual men (and I say this as a bi man who sees straight men's plights and wants to actually classify them as a sexual minority). Its a self-limiting approach they've adopted that is not fertile for increasing collective self-understanding.

We're left with nothing but debunkers, not actual intellectual engagement with manhood and masculinity and misandry, and what these things even are and how we can better the health of our sons.

[–]SerialMurderer 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintraining 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Reception_5545 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sskkkswwee 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetje 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]White_Immigrant 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisanthropicReveling 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Billydee23-[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JojoGotDaMojo 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Billydee23-[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skirt_Douglas 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rich-Distance-6509 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Billydee23-[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ConvolutedMaze -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintraining 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steamedhamjobleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link