Warren Farrell with Andrew Yang | LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Blauwpetje · 2022-02-22T15:39:11+00:00

In the past Yang may have said some stupid things about men, but let's forgive him. This is actually happening and I think it's an absolute...

[–]imjusthereforresearc 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Is_This_Safe_To_Eat 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mahameghabahanacentrist male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skirt_Douglas 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLWMA 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLWMA 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLWMA 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ljus_sirap 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DekajaSukunda 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor[S] 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ljus_sirap -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fcsquadleft-wing male advocate -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Honestly he's not particularly progressive. His basic income plan would have been great if it was in addition to the other important supports we give to poor people who are experiencing certain conditions, but he intended it (with Rand Paul's blessing) as a replacement of those exact programs.

To be honest, he backtracked on the more egregious aspects of this, and honestly, welfare is trash. UBI SHOULD replace a lot of it. This argument against UBI is kind of bad faith. "Oh it makes them worse off" uh...in 99% of cases, bull****.

Moreover, as the late Michael Brooks pointed out, many poor renters would simply have seen those basic income checks swallowed up by rent increases if they weren't the lucky few living in a rent-controlled building.

That is such a dishonest argument. Rent control leads to shortages. Section 8 has a long waiting list that fails most eligible for it. And UBI, while it could lead to an increase in demand for housing that drives up rent, that's a HOUSING issue, not a UBI problem. The fact is "leftists' measures to fix housing arent helping and UBI would be far better overall. Rent control? Section 8? Not working.

[–]fcsquadleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry to see you resort to dismissive sneers in response to my comment instead of more reasoned arguments. Merely labeling arguments against UBI as "bad faith" or "dishonest" is not particularly persuasive in the absence of a thoughtful explanation of why you believe this.

FTR, I personally am not opposed to UBI. My attitude towards it largely mirrors Michael Brooks's in this discussion he had of Yang back in 2019: if it supplements rather than replaces the other important programs providing basic support for the (working and non-working) poor — and is funded by a tax on the rich instead of a VAT — I'm all for it. But that's the opposite of what Yang was proposing. Now if he's backtracked on those aspects of his proposal, I'd be very interested in exactly what his (current) proposal is and would be happy to drill down on whatever citations you have where he fleshes his new proposal out.

Rent control leads to shortages.

That isn't what a number of real world studies on the issue found, according to this Jacobin article. I share the alarm of many who are watching how certain corporations are furiously buying up houses with the apparent endgame of locking large numbers of Americans out of home ownership and into perpetual renter status. There are plenty of empty houses … but if they're controlled by a small number of entities they can readily be held off the market to maximize profitability in a non-rent-controlled environment.

[–]JonWood007 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sorry to see you resort to dismissive sneers in response to my comment instead of more reasoned arguments. Merely labeling arguments against UBI as "bad faith" or "dishonest" is not particularly persuasive in the absence of a thoughtful explanation of why you believe this.

And your arguments against UBI are the same old far left talking points.

FTR, I personally am not opposed to UBI. My attitude towards it largely mirrors Michael Brooks's in this discussion he had of Yang back in 2019: if it supplements rather than replaces the other important programs providing basic support for the (working and non-working) poor — and is funded by a tax on the rich instead of a VAT — I'm all for it. But that's the opposite of what Yang was proposing. Now if he's backtracked on those aspects of his proposal, I'd be very interested in exactly what his (current) proposal is and would be happy to drill down on whatever citations you have where he fleshes his new proposal out.

Okay, as someone who cares about UBI and likes UBI enough to actually make their own UBI plans, have you ever tried to do this?

Do you know what it takes to make a good UBI proposal? Any sane UBI proposal would be trying to remove at least some elements of the existing safety net. Because they suck. Now, some programs SHOULD stay. And even yang walked back some of that stuff as he was confronted with it, so stuff like medicaid, social security, ya know, the BIG programs would stack on top of UBI. Even then, he just allowed people to opt out of UBI if their current programs would be better. Like he gave people that option. So the left is just foaming at the mouth over nothing. it's dumb. They just rabidly foam at the mouth against the guy for some reason and its just dumb.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-freedom-dividend-inside-andrew-yangs-plan-to-give-every-american-1000/

Also, VAT TAX. ERMAHGERD REGRESSIVE.

Okay...I'm gonna put it simply. You realize...that yang is giving you free money, right? $1000 a month. Maybe more in a family. You realize that you need to spend more than $120k with a 10% VAT to pay in right? NO ONE MENTIONS THAT PART. They just scream ERMAHGERD VAT IS REGRESSIVE without thinking about what the actual net benefit is. It's dumb. Leftist arguments against yang are so dumb.

EDIT: Also another thing. Yang's VAT wouldnt include essentials so it wouldnt be impacting the super poor as much.

https://thechoatenews.choate.edu/2019/09/27/andrew-yangs-value-added-tax-will-reduce-income-inequality/

That isn't what a number of real world studies on the issue found, according to this Jacobin article. I share the alarm of many who are watching how certain corporations are furiously buying up houses with the apparent endgame of locking large numbers of Americans out of home ownership and into perpetual renter status. There are plenty of empty houses … but if they're controlled by a small number of entities they can readily be held off the market to maximize profitability in a non-rent-controlled environment.

Uh...not sure I really trust jacobin, but yeah, according to mainstream economics it doesnt work well and leads to shortages over time. They might make a case for it, but im not really convinced to the contrary.

I have issues with corporations buying up houses too. They should have to pay a land value tax if you ask me.

Either way the problem is overstated and your typical landlord only owns three properties, and the market is quite open and not monopolized. The core problem is that housing is just insanely in demand in a lot of regions and the demand outstrips the available supply.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lastfreethinkerleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Anyone can quote anyone out of context to make them look bad. Grow up.

Really? then provide me that "acceptable context"

Either way, just one thing i wanna point out. I know this is a sub for male advocacy, but can we seriously stop minimizing womens' issues?

What? when did I even minimize women's issues?

Women absoluely should have reproductive rights,

Yes? but saying "if men got pregnant there would be abortion clinics everywhere" is bullshit considering men have little to no reproduction rights in real life.

and there is some level of misogyny in our culture.

Saying "Our country is deeply misogynist" is highly inaccurate

Seriously. This is one thing that annoys me about culture war nonsense between mens right people and feminists, the two groups act like they're in a zero sum game against each other and it's just obnoxious.

Yes it's a zero sum game not between men and women but between feminists and any aware and good intented person because feminism is a hate movement that wants to make men second class people.

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LawUntoChaos 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

but can we seriously stop minimizing womens' issues?

Most women's issues aren't even women's issues. Domestic Violence/violence shouldn't be gendered. The fact that it is and it is heavily weighted toward women's issues is what makes it gendered. If society approached such issues as a victim/perpetrator dynamic that would solve a lot of issues, but it doesn't fit the narrative.

Women absolutely should have reproductive rights

I rather think you missed their point, the idea that men would have reproductive rights if they were the ones who gave birth is laughable. Women have more control over reproductive rights than men on every metric. The man is limited by the choice that the women makes. You say it isn't a zero sum game, but making such a comment reinforces this (false) idea that men aren't subjected to prejudices or discrimination.

and there is some level of misogyny in our culture.

Yes. There likely always will be, just as there will always be some level of misandry in our culture. The idea of pervasive misogyny is over exaggerated however, and data supports this. That's not to say that biases don't exist but as long as there is a dominant narrative of the core of society being built by men for men then we're going to have a skewed view of gender dynamics. The biggest barrier holding women back these days, is Feminism (Patriarchy Theory to be precise). Patriarchy Theory thrives off of the perceived lack of agency of women. The only stereotype that has remained consistent against women.

Seriously. This is one thing that annoys me about culture war nonsense between mens right people and feminists, the two groups act like they're in a zero sum game against each other and it's just obnoxious.

Is it not? I want to make my thoughts on this clear...

Should it be? No. Does it have to be? No. Does this mean we have to accept it as a zero sum game? No. Should we operate under the metric of zero sum just because it is? Absolutely not. Is it a zero sum game as it stands? Yes, it absolutely is. Some aspects are very much zero sum as the narrative lies.

Not because it should be, but because there is a concentrated effort to block support groups for men, to deny men as victims, to blame men as perpetrators. There is no concentrated help toward boys struggling in schools. There is no public consciousness on how boys aren't going to university. I believe it is zero sum because of three reasons:

Gynocentrism - This is largely biological as far as I can tell. We are more protective of women as a species. This isn't anyone's fault, but the research seems to support this as fact (in general, there are always individual occurrences where this isn't the case).
An ideology built on gynocentric impulses that maintains itself on the idea that society is built on men oppressing women, of which it is quite reasonable (given the evidence) to assume that this is also based on the same bias of women as victim and men as perpetrator, as well as a lack of empathy toward male suffering. Again, no ones fault but Patriarchy Theory is a belief system. It's more of a secular religion than an actual theory.
Due to a combination of the above, we have focused on women's issues and dismantling negative stereotypes toward women (which I think is a good thing), and also removing barriers for women (again, a good thing) and saying women are professionally competent too (a good thing), and that women don't have to adhere to stereotypes of being baby making machines (good thing). On the flip side however, men's place in society has been stripped bare. Rather than break down the stereotypes of men being violent, or men not being care givers - we have left men with all the negative stereotypes and none of the good. We haven't provided men alternative paths of meaning. I really think we're going to see the impact of this soon.

I think these three points create a feedback loop. The more we negatively stereotype men, the more that we will refuse to see them as potential victims and the more we will be able to justify harmful/neglectful policies toward boys. Ironically, I think this approach will lead to more male violence. It is culture feeding into biology, feeding back into culture.

Whether people like it or not, I really do think it is a zero sum game - just for now. This is the element that need to be dismantled if we're going to strive toward a balanced approach to equality. Patriarchy Theory is incompatible with men's rights, it just is. That theory has got to go for progress's sake. Once that is done, there shouldn't be separate groups. It should be a discussion that everyone (who cares) is involved in.

[–]JonWood007 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Holy wall of text dude.

Ya know when I found this sub I thought I found an island of sanity on men's issues but this sub is devolving into the same mansphere anti feminism nonsense as all the others (other than men's lib which is toxic as **** in its own way).

No it's not a zero sum game. Yes feminism has issues. It also has valid arguments. Yes the men's movement has valid points. It also has issues. Rather than devolving into our tribes and attacking "the other" I don't understand why we can't just acknowledge the problems both ways and try to solve the problems both ways.

Failing to do so just devolves the arguments down into toxic tribalism. No the two are not inherently in conflict with each other. The source of conflict comes from both sides trying to promote their issues at the expense of the other. And yes its both sides. Feminism, men's rights movements, etc.

Seriously go outside and touch grass. Deal with real people. No one in the rela world except the extremists on both sides actually see things like this and think like this. Existing in echo chambers cause people to see things like this. Dealing with toxic people from the other side cause people to think like this.

Ps I literally said in another thread I support financial abortion. I know men get the short end of the stick with reproductive rights but ironically it's because of the patriarchy and those mld outdated norms. Feminism wants rights for me but not for thee. This movement is risking the same zero sum mindset talking like this. It's not a competition. Throw out the old norms for both sides. It's not that hard. Jesus.

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

> No it's not a zero sum game. Yes feminism has issues. It also has valid arguments. Yes the men's movement has valid points. It also has issues. Rather than devolving into our tribes and attacking "the other" I don't understand why we can't just acknowledge the problems both ways and try to solve the problems both ways.

We acknowledge women have issues but *most* people here (including me) do not support feminism because they think feminism is a hate movement so when the ''other'' is a hate movement targetting the gender you are advocating for, attacking them is not only natural but also necessary.

> Failing to do so just devolves the arguments down into toxic tribalism. No the two are not inherently in conflict with each other. The source of conflict comes from both sides trying to promote their issues at the expense of the other. And yes its both sides. Feminism, men's rights movements, etc.

Feminism wants to remove rights of males and have done that many times already so yes male advocacy inherently conflicts with feminism, not with women's rights advocacy feminism doesnt have a monopoly on that. plus when did MRAs fight removing rights of women? I could provide multiple examples of feminists doing that against men.

> Seriously go outside and touch grass. Deal with real people. No one in the rela world except the extremists on both sides actually see things like this and think like this. Existing in echo chambers cause people to see things like this. Dealing with toxic people from the other side cause people to think like this.

It's amusingly ironic that a person with 250k karma shaming others for ''being on internet too much''

> Ps I literally said in another thread I support financial abortion. I know men get the short end of the stick with reproductive rights but ironically it's because of the patriarchy and those mld outdated norms. Feminism wants rights for me but not for thee. This movement is risking the same zero sum mindset talking like this. It's not a competition. Throw out the old norms for both sides. It's not that hard. Jesus.

Ah yes typical ''men have problems because of patriarchy'' I don't get why you dislike menslib at all to be honest it's a perfect place where you can blame all male issues on so called ''patriarchy'' all day and night.

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LawUntoChaos 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Ya know when I found this sub I thought I found an island of sanity on men's issues but this sub is devolving into the same mansphere anti feminism nonsense

From your response, it doesn't actually seem like you're addressing my arguments. Or anyone who I have seen you reply to today. The person you originally responded to gave examples of Andrew Yang saying some ignorant things. Calling these out isn't "toxic tribalism". Honestly, this sub isn't in anyway close to being like the "manosphere".

No it's not a zero sum game. Yes feminism has issues. It also has valid arguments.

Yes it has - I never said it didn't. Patriarchy theory is not one of them, certain aspects of Patriarchy Theory might have elements of truth in it but the basis of said theory is completely wrong.

I don't understand why we can't just acknowledge the problems both ways and try to solve the problems both ways.

Because a toxic ideology that is built off the basis that the problems don't go both ways is prominent in the discourse. Did you miss the part where I said that this was the ideal goal? I don't think men's rights should exist as a group, and I think both groups should come together and listen to each other. This just won't happen until Patriarchy Theory stops dominating the discourse. I said this. The fact that this ideology forces a certain view point that minimises men's issues, makes it a zero sum game.

Failing to do so just devolves the arguments down into toxic tribalism.

Exactly, which is why Patriarchy Theory needs to go as the dominant ideology around gender discourse. It is an inherently exclusive ideology when it comes to men's issues.

And yes its both sides.

To be honest this does concern me, but men's rights doesn't seem as beholden to an unfalsifiable ideology that state women have built society to benefit women and doesn't identify all issues against men as Matriarchy nor does it state that all stereotypically negative behaviours that women take part in are as a result of toxic femininity. I do agree that once that tribal door is opened, it does become very easy for someone to fall into tribal thinking. Men's rights groups aren't immune to this but Patriarchy Theory is the one that is dominant in institutions and is affecting policies. Men's rights activists are restricted to the internet. Both side do need to come together and learn, again I said as much but Patriarchy Theory has to go.

Seriously go outside and touch grass. Deal with real people. No one in the rela world except the extremists on both sides actually see things like this and think like this. Existing in echo chambers cause people to see things like this. Dealing with toxic people from the other side cause people to think like this.

I'm well aware it isn't most people, but a minority of extremists are influencing policies that are harming a lot of people. I have spoken about how most feminists aren't like the ones we see but I am talking about it being institutionalised. It isn't the only aspect driving these stereotypes and misperceptions, but it is at least built from them I don't blame feminism for its toxic people just as a I don't blame religion for its toxic people. I still wouldn't want to see religious practice put into law though. I'm well aware online isn't real. The people pushing through policies and the lack of resources for men are real however, and a lot of these people in power influencing the gendered discourse are feminists. Their influence is having real world effect.

I literally said in another thread I support financial abortion. I know men get the short end of the stick with reproductive rights but ironically it's because of the patriarchy and those mld outdated norms.

Gendered norms are from a mixture of biological and cultural reasons. We have no need to involve Patriarchy Theory - which, like religion has no place determining policy. I have gone into why on other posts, I am not doing it here. Never mentioned your personal views on abortion (financial or otherwise), you responded to OP as if they were saying that women shouldn't be able to get abortions. I pointed out that they were more than likely just referring to the fact that Andrew Yang was making a claim in comparison to men that wasn't factual. As far as I can tell it was a valid argument, you're the one who inferred a meaning that wasn't inherent in their argument. In fact, they were pointing out an example of what you claim to be against. That particular comment made a comparison between men and women whereby it was claiming that men wouldn't be restricted if they were the ones giving birth. That isn't factual and could be argued to drive a tribal mentality of men vs women.

It's not a competition. Throw out the old norms for both sides. It's not that hard. Jesus.

I agree. No one should be pigeon holed by outdated gender norms. This is why Patriarchy Theory should go, it relies on gender norms and stereotypes to support itself. If we can agree on everything else, why do you need to bring it back to Patriarchy. Surely, we don't need to lean on it as a theory to combat gender norms. Why is it necessary? If we can agree that the norms should be combatted, we surely don't need to determine blame.

You talk about tribalism, but you seem incapable of arguing against anything I have actually said. To the point where you haven't actually addressed my points and in a lot of instances even repeated sentiments I put to you. I even think you can believe in Patriarchy theory and we can come to agreements, I just recognise it for the belief structure it is.

[–]JonWood007 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LawUntoChaos 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood007 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I'll engage this one point BRIEFLY.

Patriarchy theory has legitimate backing in sociology. It is a valid lens to look at the issues through. The problem is, like other types of critical theory, it has limitations and its adherents tend to treat it like a religion.

Thats the problem with all ideologies really. You can have all of these ideas that make sense when looked at objectively and with moderation. The problem happens when you end up taking crap to extremes.

That's the problem with feminism. heck thats the problem with ALL left wing social justice movements. Critical race theory has the same issue. The believers end up becoming too extreme and end up interpreting the whole world through that lens and doesnt know how to turn it off and get perspective.

But then you have the other side who just denies the issues altogether and acts like you do. You end up denying the problems because the other side's adherents are extreme. But just because they're extreme doesnt mean that they're always wrong.

Thats the problem with this sub, and really, gendered politics in general. People end up picking "their side" and end up talking obsessively about those issues, while hating on the other side.

Men have issues. Thats why i decided to sub here. I dont feel they get enough attention. Because the feminists ignore them to push their stuff, and then the mens rights people hate women it seems.

You might not be as bad as the MRAs, but you still have a bit too much of their perspective for me.

Feminism is legitimate. Mens rights is legitimate. Both point to real issues. But the politics and tribalism surrounding those movements is just toxic, and quite frankly, i like to minimize my exposure to this crap. From BOTH sides.

So I wake up, and i get all of these walls of text about how feminism is bad, and going on about mens issues and im just like...yep...not doing this. I will at least explain my problem though, like i did here. Have a nice day. I wont be engaging further because im trying to block someone further up this thread who keeps spamming my inbox with this nonsense in multiple threads, so i'm just gonna send this and then block him.

[–]LawUntoChaos 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So I had a reply lined up, but it was getting to be too long and I thought you probably wouldn't appreciate it (this still turned out long - sorry). I'm honestly not doing it to annoy you, I use reddit as a medium to organise my thoughts and often end up getting carried away. I will try to make this brief. It does mean a lot of my thoughts won't be expanded upon, but I still feel you are misrepresenting me somewhat.

I respect your opinion.

Patriarchy Theory does stumble onto a lot of truths. The core of it however is unfalsifiable and I believe its basic structure encourages human tribalism. Just as the basic structure of religion does. I appreciate it has academic backing but it can still be wrong, academia has been wrong in the past and it can be wrong now. Especially as I think that human interaction is complex with multiple variables. We should be careful when constructing any meta narratives from it. My issues with it are the same as any critical theory, it triggers the human psychological mechanisms in a lot of people that encourages and fosters human tribalism. That does not mean I think it gets everything wrong and I never said it did.

It is why I made the comparison to religion. I believe in God, and I do think religion is built around a lot of truths (in the metaphysical psychological sense) but I still think some elements of religion are regressive and the underlying foundation of it does encourage and foster human tribalism.

I don't hate feminism or feminists.

I do think it is a problem where it has become institutionalised however. It is being used to push policies, which are inherently exclusive. Just because I think that it is harmful to have Patriarchy theory underlining discourse at an institutional level doesn't mean that I think all the issues it raises are dismissable. I don't think that feminists and MRAs are inherently at odds, but Patriarchy Theory is blocking discourse on an institutional level.

I believe this is making it a zero sum game, that doesn't mean I think it should be and that doesn't mean that I don't think that people from multiple perspectives shouldn't come together. In fact, it would be great if people good. That is a desirable goal.

I do take umbrage with how you have categorised me. I don't think it is a fair appraisal of my character. You have claimed that I have denied issues. What issues have I denied, I have just stated that the foundation of Patriarchy Theory is flawed and offered sources to boot? I don't believe I have dismissed anything and I don't believe I have acted in a tribal manner. What have I supposedly denied?

Men have issues. Thats why i decided to sub here. I dont feel they get enough attention. Because the feminists ignore them to push their stuff, and then the mens rights people hate women it seems.

All I've done is point out where I think feminism is flawed. Unfortunately, it is a pretty big flaw. I realise this is a bit of a catch-22 as far as my perspective is concerned. The way to effectively dismantle stereotypes would be to support boys to self-actualise and build them from the ground up. Unfortunately, the institutions that have the resources to do that are primarily run by people who are more concerned with helping and supporting women.

Feminism is legitimate. Mens rights is legitimate. Both point to real issues.

Agreed but I also think they're both too idealistic in their own way. We'll never dismantle gender Stereotypes completely for one. And both seem to be convinced that any discrepancy is caused by sexism. As stated above however these things are hard to measure and you're never going to convince everyone of what steps need to be taken in these regards. Indeed, even if it could be definitively proven that bias is the cause of disparities (whilst it contributes in someway, I don't always think we can put disparities down to sexism) we still don't know the best way to tackle bias. I also think the argument for cultivation theory is quite week. Blaming problems on the TV or media seems a tad unrealistic.

Personally, I think compassionate economic and social programmes will help alleviate issues more. King Randall seems to be doing it right. That's where we should be focusing our resources. But as a left-wing economic plan, rather than just one individual doing it. This is a difficult task to say the least.

[–]JonWood0072 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uh, feminism (or critical gender theory) has been documented a lot within social science, from concepts like the glass ceiling to uneven distributions of housework among adults, to aspects of socialization that lead to various outcomes.

The problem is, as you point out, a lot of the online adherents end up turning it into like a religion. Because it is. Social justice stuff very much goes beyond its academic credentials in mainstream culture and basically has a lot of characteristics of a cult or religion, including trying to punish people to don't 100% accept it.

It's a huge reason i hate a lot of aspects of modern feminism. But that doesnt mean there isnt some legitimacy on a purely academic level.

My issue, with a lot of mens groups is i feel they go too far in the other way. Rather than recognize the valid aspects of it, I feel like people MINIMIZE womens' issues. I see it a lot in these threads over and over again and its a huge reason im just refusing to engage most people. When i get weirdos going on about how women were better off back in the kitchen and not working and men got the short end of the stick working 14 hour days in the coal mines, there's a lot to really unpack there and i quite frankly dont have the energy to do it, as these kinds of issues arent something im particularly passionate about (my main passion is UBI).

Like..you can see why i respond the way I do when I got people talking like that, right? It's like...yeah, this isnt a good use of my time. Heck, a reason im having trouble responding here is because im trying to block one user up above who is just flooding my inbox with **** claiming he "won" because i refused to engage him seriously.

So...let's not act like toxic masculinity isnt a thing and isnt present in these threads. At the same time, toxic femininity is also a thing, and the feminists just deny it. That's a huge reason why i hate dealing with these issues. You got women who are for womens issues and treat that crap like a cult and downplay mens issues, then you got men who act like feminism isnt a legitimate theory and promoting their own toxic crap. it's like, you're both right, but you're both oh so wrong, and i really just dont care enough to engage.

Patriarchy theory is real but it doesnt tell the whole story. It needs updating and expanding to be less gender specific. The problem is traditional gender norms are just inherently against egalitarianism. For women this takes the form of the patriarchy. But for men, we often get the **** end of capitalism and wage slavery as a result. Although i wouldnt define wage slavery as inherently just a men's issue, but a capitalism issue, as women in the work force are just as enslaved as men.

Idk...as i see it, if women wanna work let them work. If they wanna be stay at home moms, let them. If men wanna work, let them work, if they dont, well they shouldnt have to either. I'm for freedom. And like you, I would prefer to focus on economic programs like UBI and M4A, which would reduce peoples' dependence on the work force for basic survive, and thus alleviate the issues from wage slavery. It would also reduce women from dependence on men, and vice versa too. It's a win for everyone.

Everyone gets what they want, no one is oppressed. People can continue to fight over minor details, but i feel like right now those minor details end up just blasting out the major issues.

And thats actually why i like yang. I want a UBI. I want universal healthcare. Yang mirrors my politics almost perfectly. And quite frankly, pushing for those things is far more important than who does what housework, and whether women are disadvantaged in the work force due to pregnancy, or whether babies are circumcised.

Like, i jsut feel the wrong issues are focused on, and im sick and tired of all of this cultural tribalism.

Anyway, I will NOT be responding from here on out, because I'm trying to block someone else and i cant respond to this sub thread without unblocking him.

[–]LawUntoChaos1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thank you for this.

I'm going to make this short because you said you aren't going to reply anyway. There are some points you mentioned that I could unpack but like you said, it is a lot and I don't have the time or inclination. The main reason I discuss these issues is because I enjoy exploring human tribalism and behaviour.

I could go into how feminist academia has got away from itself but there's no point there either. I don't agree with all your inferences but that is irrelevant. I agree with you on what you consider to be the important aspects. I am also not sure how much I agree with the socialisation leading to certain outcomes, academics can't even seem to agree on this one. I think this theory explains disparities somewhat, but probably only a very small percentage. What does concern me (pertaining to men's rights) are these aspects:

1) Disparities in funding for the homeless/less shelters for men. 2) Boys falling behind in education. This might not be to do with bias as such, but I still think it is concerning. We should be doing our best to reach every child. 3) Lack of medical research funding for men's issues compared to women's issues. 4) Mental health/support services for men 5) This is another tricky one but there does seem to be evidence that there is a sentencing disparity between men and women. This is hard to judge though, despite what people may say as whilst we can try and account for variables these are potentially limitless. I think the evidence is strong enough that we can infer some bias but...

I am not in the game of trying to change bias. I think it is a fools game. I think if we can change conditions for men then behaviour will change and then so will biases. People see patterns, even if it is unfair to generalise. Disrupt the pattern, disrupt misperception. At least that's my philosophy. Here's how we should be tackling the above issues. These would support other groups as well.

1) UBI 2) An overhaul of the education system which works with individuals to find their strengths, Foster an environment where they are encouraged to self actualize and offer them different paths to meaning. Core subjects would remain the same but everything else would be tailored to a students individual needs. Education has become too linked with status. 3) Free Healthcare but this won't help with research funding. Not sure what you do about this one, maybe arrange for an increase in funding based upon number of patients/people affected 4) See above point 5) A legal system based more around compassion and rehabilitation.

But... For some of the ones above, we do have an issue of funding being blocked due to gynocentrism/some feminists groups. And this is also where we agree. There is no way to hold modern feminists to account and I do think this aspect is harmful.

I'm also a fan of Yang btw.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JonWood0071 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You know, when I first found this place, I thought I finally found a decent sub. Between the MRAs on one side, and the feminists on the other, most gendered politics sucks. Feminism makes good points, but they're hypocritical and want rights for me (women in this case) but not for thee (men). On the other hand, MRAs, in my experience, are toxic, basement dwelling neckbeards who hate women. And I dont make that comparison lightly. Incels literally are a thing after all. Anyway, the two sides of the same coin. And as such, most gendered politics is horrible for me. THere's nothing wrong with men's advocacy, but when I get people acting like women were better off back in the kitchen, then yeah, that's a problem. You guys have a culture and an attitude problem.

The reason I subbed here was I thought I finally found a men's advocacy sub that wasn't toxic, but unlike men's lib, didnt completely cuck out to feminism either (trust me, not a fan of those guys either despite being nominally pro feminist). But, the past few days here have shown that you're just as bad as the MRAs. And now you're claiming to be MRAs. You do realize MRAs go WAY beyond mere male advocacy and are an extremely sexist movement with hostile and sexist attitudes toward women right?

It's too late, these discussions have made me unsub. I aint sticking around here in such a toxic, anti feminist environment. Feminism certainly deserves criticism, and it dooes go too far, but if you have no respect for their movement either, well, we are not allies.

Btw, if youre wondering what im looking for, look no forward than andrew yang, someone who respects feminism but still advocates quite unapologetically for men's values, without listening to the shrill shreeking of the SJWs. But, who at the same time, doesn't cater to toxic traditionalist attitudes we often see among the alt right MRAs.

But, apparently he's not "pure" enough for you guys.

I admit, I could have conducted myself a little better in this thread, I have little patience sometimes. BUT, for you to mod me for the one comment chain where I'm trying to legitimately engage, LOL. Wow. Just wow dude. Anyway, this is me engaging honestly, and seriously, and if you dont like it, you can just freaking ban me. I dont care. As I said, I unsubbed so I'm unlikely to cause future problems anyway. Because I won't be posting here much if at all.

[–]a-man-from-earth1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I told you, you can engage in good faith, without attacking people or our values. Or you can get banned.

You chose to attack us again:

MRAs, in my experience, are toxic, basement dwelling neckbeards who hate women.

and

You guys have a culture and an attitude problem.

and

You do realize MRAs go WAY beyond mere male advocacy and are an extremely sexist movement with hostile and sexist attitudes toward women right?

As I said above, MRAs advocate for the equal human rights of men. There is nothing inherently toxic about that. There is no underlying ideology that is sexist (unlike feminism).

You should stop listening to feminist propaganda that is smearing us. Do we have some bad apples? Sure. But is misogyny part and parcel of what MRAs stand for? No, not at all.

So you calling us misogynist neckbeards is not on.

That's why you're now banned.

[–]sneedchuckfuck -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi_win 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Warren Farrell with Andrew Yang
Author	Blauwpetje
Upvotes	33
Comments	73
Date	February 22, 2022 3:39 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/syqi4n/warren_farrell_with_andrew_yang/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/warren-farrell-with-andrew-yang.1103516 https://theredarchive.com/post/1103516

Comments