Nerd
10hr ago
Your post has its points, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that all girls are sort of latent beautiful princesses. And would that this were so. I'd suggest that you're missing (as many who suggest that women just have to sit around being beautiful, picking and choosing which man to allow in) is that arguably most women are simply not very physically attractive in a conventional sense. This is especially true once a girl gets older and no longer has the lithe thinness of the teenage years (but many do not even have that.)
Ok, i wouldnt say all women, i think an overall baseline attractiveness is there, at least initially. But i probably edit this post to incorporate some of these critiques. You (and others) do make a good point here.
This cuts no ice with gender abolitionists because they're social constructionists and their response to something like this is simply to demand society change this judgment.
They can demand what they like, but its probably always gonna be the case to some extent or another. The amount of evidence we have that the sexes are different makes a social constructivist view unsurmountable.
Masculinity and femininity as general pro-social concepts are only really useful when there is a division of gender roles
Id argue that the masculinity and feminity, to the extent they are socially constructed are just attempts to understand and navigate the base biology of two sexes. There is more to that than just the "roles".
To the extent that men and women are attracted to different things women also need to learn how to be feminine in order to be attractive
Hmm, im curious, whats your argument here?
Nerd
1d ago
Most girls aren't "born sexy," and even those with favorable genetics can totally make a mess of things if they just go with whatever seems fun and exciting in the moment.
Meh, Ok perhaps this was poor framing on my part. Im gonna narrow it down a bit. Many girls arent born thin (there are many that are) or born with make up (though make up really just enhances whats already there naturally). But id still maintain that the option to leverage beauty exists more often, and the emphasis of beauty is clearly slanted towards women more. And the skills necessary to maintain it arent really as complex and difficult as the skills for climbing the social ladder.
Yes you can make yourself ugly with bad decisions, but the point here is that you'd have to make the decision to begin with - you'd still be starting with a baseline of attractiveness handed to many via the lottery of genetics, and then losing it due to your own decisions. Attractiveness is not as valued in men to start with (although it matters). To put this into perspective, women are rated as more attractive than men, id argue just because they are - well, women.
I'd bet money that if you asked people whether Chris Evans was more attractive than Scarlett Johansen, Scarlett would probably win. Even thought they are "close" in attractiveness.
but she's more right than this rubbish about how all women are valued for gestating fetuses, as though women with a bunch of kids and various baby daddies get so much status and respect for their femininity.
The loss in status here has more to do with how reproduction was facilitated. Yeah, its low status, because its blatantly irresponsible behavior. Its the same reason boxers and UFC fighters would have high status on the male side of things, as opposed to a thug and a gangster starting fights, despite both actors utilizing masculine characteristics, such as strength and toughness: context matters!
Because poor, fat, socially inept women get so much respect. No!
I mean, yeah, i see your point, but again, the social effects here are disproportionate. We see men who are poor and socially inept judged more harshly and given less grace - homeless men are a good example: people will see a homeless men as a lazy and a bum, unworthy of compassion or help. This leads to many in our society giving less help towards, and women being given more (there being more womens shelters and the like). It likely contributes to men being more likely to be homeless in general.
Bear in mind here, im not saying women have it "easier". Just that the 2 experiences are unique.
So "Into The Manosphere" is a netflix documentary, that im sure many here have heard of.
Here is a video on it that I watched, by a psychiatrist. Although I enjoyed it enough, there is a common sentiment that deserves to critiqued, one that was echoed in the video, that i will simplify with a youtube comment (note: this comment is in response to another comment, the context of which i will be representing by {} brackets):
See, this is what has always genuinely confused me, too.{Why should we be good men? Just be a good person bro?} Why is there so much emphasis on the man part{of male role-modes} (except maybe that's literally part of patriarchy, too)? I didn't grow up thinking about how to be a woman, I grew up thinking about wanting to be a scientist and wanting to travel and be a generally good and mostly happy person. The whole being a woman thing was just something society forced on me that I mostly resented. Just teach people to be good, healthy, functional people.
But a lot of men, including people I genuinely respect and agree with on sociopolitical issues still seem to think there's value in some type of male identity. And maybe there is, but no one has been able to explain it to me. But the need for some kind of masculine identity just seems like insecurity and needing a set of rules to live by from the outside, instead of doing the work of learning to be a whole, messy, beautiful human being.
And don't get me wrong. I think men get confined to a tighter box in terms of acceptable behavior than women, even as that box often comes with higher social standing. Sometimes, I feel really sad for boys that have to grow up in this mess. But also, how hard is it to just learn to be yourself without all the weird, gendered expectations? I'm really very baffled by it all.
I think this gender abolitionist framing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Men & Women are judged and valued by society differently. Men are valued based on their ability to climb up social hierarchy to obtain status. Women's value is more reflected by their attractiveness, and reproductive capabilities. Masculinity (attempts) to provide useful guidelines and structure to achieve this end. Women simply do not exist in the same space, so their variation of being a role model wouldn't be a good representation of the male position. It would be a kin to a white man trying to be a role model for black boys - the critical social context is not there.
Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.
EDIT: Ok, the above statement was hasty initially. There are some aspects that are require skill in some capacity. Not all women are born pretty butterfly's, you need make up, nails, hair, ect, and this requires skill in its own right. But none the less, i wouldn't say this is equivalent to the skills sets required for Masculinity.
The problem with "being yourself" as so often espoused by liberal types is that, it provides 0 road map to achieving the traits that women (and people in general) value in men. & this is the same general issue I take with the manosphere opponents - Many of these individuals believe completely asinine and reality denying ideas like "Looks don't matter" or "You just need to be a good person to be attractive". The manosphere, for all its misogyny and toxicity, is at least calling out the reality of the situation: If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society. This is - arguably - one of the main appeals of the manosphere to begin with. If one really wants to see the manosphere go away - we need to start looking at these realities of life straight to the face. Only then can one begin to provide meaningfully positive alternatives.
Nerd
5d ago
This is an interesting trend in history, but i think another way to look at it is why its happening, and why certain societies and not others?
First and foremost, this doesn't seem to follow geo politically. It seems to be a phenomenon that's unique to specific societies, like the US, and this "progress" is not uniform nor takes place everywhere.
Most of east Asia is much more "racist" & "sexist" than the west. China is insanely oppressive and controlling, they are not democratic in the slightest. Out of wedlock births are few and are stigmatized in those societies, they do not allow gay marriage.
Ukraine is currently "losing" its war with Russia.
What would be the morally correct position on the Israel-Palestine conflict? Can we say that history is bending towards Palestine, Israel, or a 2 state solution?
The Taliban taking over in Afghanistan.
There is a loss of privacy & general alienation that comes with modern technology.
Why does this only happen in certain countries and not others? If its about morality, why is history permiting some "immorality" in some places and not others. What makes progressives such a cultural power house in the states?
Nerd
5d ago
There is not always a long arc of morality.
So this article is interesting, but the pessimist in me cant help but think that this is "wrong" in the long run.
Im not a fan of progressives by any means. I'm sure many here are not either but i also think that we must look reality straight in the face: Most conservative positions (Id argue at least 65% ) lose in the long run. Primarily due to demographic shifts. Primarily in age cohorts, but we cant be naive that race is likely playing a factor as well.
One example he takes that is in my opinion, quite poor, is Abortion. First and foremost, there have only been 3 states that have been to defend the pro-life position successfully at the ballot box recently, Florida (only be a 60% technicality), South Dakota, and Nebraska respectively. Many deeply red states have voted for the practice (Kansas, Kentucky, etc). And lets not forget the fact that there are 5 states in the union including DC, that have 0 gestational limits, and attempts to add limits failed in Colorado and New Mexico. This an extremist position by western standards, in is not law in the majority of the world.
This one particularly bothers me, because of how fucking disgusting and twisted many of these doctors who do these later terminations are, the fact that states protect them, and the fact that the mainstream media & democrats lie about them taking place on healthy children and mothers.
The pew research link ive sighted above also reveals that many among Gen Z support some level of gender ideology (well, surprisingly, most still think that gender is determined at birth) But id probably bet money that this could be shifted as well.
Lets all face the music, Conservative America is simply going the way of the dinosaurs. We have a declining birth rate, religiosity is going down the toilet, marriage rates are going down toilet. Same thing with "patriotism". I would love to optimistic here, but i simply don't see it. America is becoming a more progressive society, like it or not. While i don't think this is "Inevitable"... I also see no way it could be practically prevented. It just seems like historically and currently, winning the public over and tilting the overton window rightward is just really difficult.
But hey, who knows, maybe im wrong, and 50 years from now, we will be laughing at the idea of multiple genders, mass immigration, or secularism.
Nerd
12d ago
Huh, interesting to know that the big wigs at Harvard & Yale arent that much better than the rest of us!
Nerd
14d ago
I know this isnt the main point, but what draws you the GOP/vote for republican.
Nerd
20d ago
I can't seem to find a male friend to do these things. I suppose maybe I should have joined the military, or failing that a criminal gang, you need stakes like that to get a lifelong friend. Lacking that, sex seems to be the only tie that binds. I've had on-and-off lovers remain close for a decade, who would answer my call and I'd answer theirs.
I honestly think it just takes consistently going out and doing things with someone. Ive had a best friend for 8 years now. I cant imagine my life without him, we met in college. I just asked him if we wanted to see a movie. Im mid 20s, i dont know how old you are, but thats what got me started.
Nerd
21d ago
Parenting: I thought fertility was declining, so which is it?
Meh I don't feel like this is necessarily contradictory. Even if fertility is falling for many people, the people that are parents still have their time pre occupied with children more often, even as the number of parents declines as a share of the population. They are so pre-occupied with their children that they don't make time for their friends, hence the friendships fracture.
I'm actually surprised by the lack of mobility, though. Perhaps more people think like me than i thought.
As a side note, hours worked has also declined. We've had car infrastructure for a bit as well, and we also see the decline in countries that don't have that infrastructure.
Looks like technology might be a key killer here.
Nerd
21d ago
Another factor, I suspect, is labor mobility. I'd have to double check (I won't), but I believe an ever greater share of people are moving significant distances for work. This puts them in the position of breaking existing relationships and puts them in the awkward spot of being an adult with no real social connections in their new community. And they may do this several times over their career.
I was kind trying to say this in the main post, & Richard is saying this specific thing in the video.
Thing is, i have no idea how one would go about rectifying this. The labor market is just insanely competitive and difficult, and many industries that are high paying or may be of interest to a specific person aren't evenly distributed across the country (there are more software engineers in California than Alabama, because Cali & 'Bama have fundamentally different economies). The alternative seems to be just biting the bullet and accept working $6 per hour at a gas station and buying the substandard trailer, whose best amenities consists of roaches & mold, for those who live in fundamentally poorer areas of the US. Not a very attractive proposition.
Aside from the dating recession, we have the equally important problem of the friendship recession. In the video Richard Reeves, gives some interesting possible hypothesis as to why friendships have been declining:
-
Work. I can back this anecdotally. I have made a post on here about how tough it is to find work as a young adult, in my specific industry of IT. Id probably have better chances if I were to move out of Florida, and to Austin TX or Atlanta GA. They have a larger Tech scene (& honestly, as a tech nerd, it be nice to live closer to a micro-center). I would lie if i said i haven't flirted with this idea before, but I actually have decided to remain put, precisely because I love the close friends I've made living where I'm at currently. But I won't exactly blame others for moving around for monetary reasons - we all need cash and it sucks ass to be broke.
-
He mentions parents & the amount of time now spent on raising children. This is HUGE in my opinion and needs to be talked about more: the fact that we can no longer free range raise our children as was done in the past is a great sorrow. It SUCKS to be constantly helicoptered and hand held as a child. I dont think I can emphasize that enough. It also doesnt need to be done, especially when children in other countries have much more independence, and are happier and healthier as a result.
-
Break ups splintering friendship groups. If couples break up, it can screw with the friend group as a whole, especially if someone is crazy toxic or commits infidelity. I've seen this happen in friend groups first hand. Its not pretty.
The obvious elephant in the room here is the rise of social media. Where people mindlessly scroll instead of talking to people in real life. While i think this plays a role, sociologists have been recording these kind of declines since the invention of TV. I suspect something deeper going on. What do you think?
I commented on the dating recession as well previously, but ill add another hypothesis: The dating recession is probably downstream of the friendship recession (Ill make a longer post talking about this, separately. As i feel it deserves attention by itself.). Even today 2/3's of couples start out as friends first. The dreaded "friend zone" a lot of guys want to avoid might be your best shot in actuality. I suspect a lot of women don't want to go out on a date with a random stranger they met on the street, at a bar, dancing, etc. (although there are still a chunk of women where this works!), and prefer friends first as way to gauge compatibility (or they just value the friendship!). There is also a safety aspect in that you know that the man in question is a descent person.
One thing that should also be added here is that you have to be comfortable genuinely being friends with these women (not just a friends to get in your pants kind of deal.), and be comfortable with the possibility that it wont go in a romantic direction. Even if it doesn't go that way, you made a connection that's valuable in its own right, and you may be able to date other women she is in proximity with.
As for why women might not be keen on going outside to make friends, or engage in hobbies that lead to friendships. I'd suspect its a combination of the "friendzone" problem in men's case. And a jealousy/toxicity problem with many women, where they are jealous of how another women looks, or just a toxic person, etc. (the movie Mean Girls comes to mind). The decline of 3rd places also may play a role. Its not that those kinds of issues weren't present in the past, but people are probably much more sensitive to these issues now, for whatever reason.
Nerd
26d ago
For many people, "meaning well" and being nice is very important, sometimes even more than actually accomplishing anything.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
A belief in The State as the ultimate sovereign, the final arbiter all authority, legitimacy, morality, etc... Everything within the State, nothing outside of the State, nothing against the State. Everything else is downstream of this core idea.
This is the best definition by far, and also readily points out what's actually bad about the ideology. (Crushing decent with violence, destroying any opposition, everyone forcibly conformed to the state, etc.) A lot of people who call trump fascist are focused on the way he behaves and how he talks about things. Its almost never about a specific policy he is pushing to achieve this particular goal. (And of course there are probably few of these policies, if any at all, since he doesn't have the authority to pass anything to begin with, congress must.)
The best i think could be argued is that he was heavy handed in his use of the feds from time to time with general protesting, deportation, etc., and that this is dangerously authoritarian. But that's a far cry from removing all opponents from politics and elections, or revamping the whole education system to be beholden to praising and loving trump and the administration. Things that these viscous fascist dictators actually did.
Nerd
26d ago
Meh, I wouldn’t say there is nothing wrong with it. It is after all, a dictatorship
Nerd
26d ago
Bro. Let’s be real here. The nazis threw an entire race of people in gas chambers and made them bury their own graves. Trump and the GOP have done nothing like this. That is almost certainly a bigger indication of lacking dignity than a dumb hick posting a video of trump beating a hockey player. In what world are the two even remotely comparable?
Nerd
27d ago
Ok, yeah fair enough. This is simply frustrating for me just reading it. Its like the author doesnt even understand the context here. Does he seriously think that interpreting what happened in this way fascist? Its not an unprompted attack that is being launched for no reason just to demonize the opposition. In this case, the opponent actually is attacking you in a "war" like fashion.
I decided to come in with an open mind and read this, and i have to say, im only somewhat impressed.
There are 7 primary points that I have a big axe to grind with, lets jump into it.
Blood & Soil/White & Christian nationalism
A fascist trademark is its insistence that the country is not just a collection of individuals but a people, a Volk: a mystically defined and ethnically pure group bound together by shared blood, culture, and destiny. In keeping with that idea, Trump has repudiated birthright citizenship, and Vance has called to “redefine the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century” so that priority goes to Americans with longer historical ties: “the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War,” as he put it, or people whom others on the MAGA right call “heritage Americans.” In other words, some Americans are more volkish than others.
While Vance, Trump, and MAGA do not propound an explicit ideology of racial hierarchy, they make no secret of pining for a whiter, more Christian America. Trump has found many ways to communicate this: for example, by making clear his disdain for “shithole” countries and his preference for white Christian immigrants; by pointedly accepting white South Africans as political refugees (while closing the door to most other asylum seekers); by renaming military bases to share the names of Confederate generals (after Congress ordered their names removed); by saying that civil-rights laws led to whites’ being “very badly treated.” In his National Security Strategy, he castigates Europe for allowing immigration to undermine “civilizational self-confidence” and proclaims, “We want Europe to remain European,” a rallying cry of white Christian nationalists across the continent. Taking his cue, the Department of Homeland Security has propagated unashamedly white-nationalist themes, and national parks and museums have scrubbed their exhibits of references to slavery.
Here is my push back for some of this: 1st, trump has passed laws that are in the interests of minority communities here & here There are some others as well. And has gone out of his way to condemn racists on multiple occassions 2
From the whitehouse website, the immigration that is largely approved is mostly from europe, asia, latin america, and oceania. A good chunk of people from these regions are not white, are free to come in the country. This is a heavily skewed exaggeration. White Christians are not being favored in the way the author wants us to believe.
I will concede here that attempts to white wash history (and the confederates) are bad, im not convinced that by itself is white nationalism. Even if it was, the fact that trump has been willing to go out of his way to help non-white groups proves that he probably isnt explicitly hateful in any real sense. To be honest, i dont think he cares for race that much.
As for europe. They have had enormous trouble with immigration, that warrants the type of nationalist response. The continent has been dealing with repeat violence and mass rape. This behavior is simply unacceptable. Your not a nazi for not wanting Islamist buffoons in your society, or for not wanting your societies demographics to shift towards those kinds of populations.
What’s private is public.
Classical fascism rejects the fundamental liberal distinction between the government and the private sector, per Mussolini’s dictum: “No individuals or groups outside the State.” Among Trump’s most audacious (if only intermittently successful) initiatives are his efforts to commandeer private entities, including law firms, universities, and corporations. One of his first acts as president last year was to brazenly defy a newly enacted law by taking the ownership of TikTok into his own hands. Bolton understood this mentality when he said, “He can’t tell the difference between his own personal interest and the national interest, if he even understands what the national interest is.”
So only one of the links given here is barely comparable to Mussilini.
Lets have a quick rundown of what Mussilini did to really get accross what is meant here: Mussolini sought to ensure that no independent centers of power could exist:
- Labor unions were replaced with state-run “corporations.”
- Youth groups, sports clubs, and cultural organizations were absorbed into fascist structures.
- Education was redesigned to indoctrinate children into fascist ideology.
- Religious institutions (especially the Catholic Church) were pressured, negotiated with, and partially subordinated through the Lateran Accords.
- Banned all political parties except the National Fascist Party.
- Suppressed opposition newspapers, labor unions, and civic organizations.
- Employers, workers, and the state were merged into state-supervised “corporations.” The goal was to ensure that every social identity — worker, student, parent, believer — was mediated through the state.
Targeting law firms, while certainly poor, cant really be equivalent too this.
The other link is him appointing someone to look over steel companies. This isnt him making the steel company a corporation of the feds. Whats likely happening here is that he is trying to appease the blue collar part of his base, and keeping steel jobs within the country. The intention here is seems different, at least to my eyes.
Then there is the part about the education cuts. Yeah, again, i agree its bad, but not fascism. The point of those policies is to reduce the federal governments influence and hand power to indvidual states and parents. This is the opposite of consolidation
Might is right
Also characteristic of fascism is what George Orwell called “bully-worship”: the principle that, as Thucydides famously put it, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This view came across in Trump’s notorious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump showed open contempt for what he regarded as Ukraine’s weakness; it came across explicitly, and chillingly, when Stephen Miller, the president’s most powerful aide, told CNN’s Jack Tapper: “We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” Those words, though alien to the traditions of American and Christian morality, could have come from the lips of any fascist dictator.
While I agree trump acted poorly in response to Zelensky here, the quote "We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time." Clearly strikes me as descriptive, rather than normative. It would of course be ideal if being strong wasnt the relevant factor, but thats not the reality of the situation. Those who have power makes the rules, doesnt make it ok, but it is what it is.
Territorial and military aggression
One reason I held out against identifying Trumpism with fascism in his first term was Trump’s apparent lack of interest in aggression against other states; if anything, he had seemed shy about using force abroad. Well, that was then. In his second term, he has used military force promiscuously. Of course, many presidents have deployed force, but Trump’s explicitly predatory use of it to grab Venezuela’s oil and his gangster-style threat to take Greenland from Denmark “the easy way” or “the hard way” were 1930s-style authoritarian moves. The same goes for his contempt for international law, binding alliances, and transnational organizations such as the European Union—all of which impede the state’s unconstrained exercise of its will, a central fascist tenet. (Mussolini: “Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism … are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations.”)
Ok, so greenland comments here, fair enough. Bad. But on the bright side, he rolled it back. His foreign policy isnt the same as desiring to invade and conquer every country a la Mussolini. CFR notes that “many of [trumps] actions mirror those of previous administrations,” even as the strategic framing differs.
This is the last one im gonna touch on, because i find it so fucking gross.
Politics as war
A distinctive mark of fascism is its conception of politics, best captured by Carl Schmitt, an early-20th-century German political theorist whose doctrines legitimized Nazism. Schmitt rejected the Madisonian view of politics as a social negotiation in which different factions, interests, and ideology come to agreement, the core idea of our Constitution. Rather, he saw politics as a state of war between enemies, neither of which can understand the other and both of which feel existentially threatened—and only one of which can win. The aim of Schmittian politics is not to share the country but to dominate or destroy the other side. This conception has been evident in MAGA politics since Michael Anton (now a Trump-administration official) published his famous article arguing that the 2016 election was a life-and-death battle to save the country from the left (a “Flight 93” election: “charge the cockpit or you die”). In the speech given by Stephen Miller at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, MAGA’s embrace of Schmittian totalism found its apotheosis: “We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion … You are nothing. You are wickedness.”
Dude, for fucks sakes, the dude went and fucking murdered a man!. He almost certainly is not coming in good faith or wanting to be buddy buddy with conservatives or the people he perceive as fascists. Leftist extremist who are referring to others as fascists and desiring to bash the fash, and actually carrying out the violence are clearly asking for a fight. People have the right to denounce those kinds of people as the assholes they are. Last i checked, if you fired the first shot, you are the one starting the war.
This post is getting long, but i just wanted to rant about the parts that really bothered me
Nerd
27d ago
Yeah. Tons of younger women seem to be unable to effectively flirt OR to effectively and gracefully reject an otherwise polite advance.
You can give men all the coaching you like, but if the women they're targeting either completely shut down/retreat... or get nasty in response, then they will RAPIDLY decide there's no point to it.
I briefly touched on this on the original post. We can add this to the "Have more socialization at a young age between the sexes" solution.
Perhaps, but there is also substantial overlap. Most people value someone if they are good looking for example, its just something that happens in the subconscious.
More options
Context Copy link