dil

Yeah, the left really struggles with branding - "global warming" being the example that comes to mind. "Oh yeah, well then why is it cold right now?" ... So now it's "climate change".

It seems like there's a lot of language that the left is using in the gender discussion that's not great. "Toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy backfiring" are two examples that hit close to home. I like @Dwayne-Payton879 's suggestion of "toxic gender roles" for the first.

This is why we oppose [...] any negative generalizations of men as a gender.

Out of curiosity - do we oppose positive generalizations of men as a gender? Or is the issue just "generalizing men, positive or negative"?

Cause that's all they are - tropes. stereotypes. They're the same stereotypes that we're recognizing as harmful expectations. When we say "men are expected to be X" that's the same thing - the reason we're expected to be X is because "you need to be X or you're not a real man."

We feel the ways in which society's stereotype of men hurt us, and those same expectations cause harm to other folks as well. It's fair for folks to complain about that, but it's complaining about the stereotypes.

The left wants to change toxic gender roles, just like we do. Do you have better ideas for actually getting things to change that doesn't involve the left? We can complain about society all day long, but actually changing it requires work. The door is open for you to join the fight and take part in the conversation - it just requires solidarity and a willingness to fight for others too.

No, this is a misrepresentation. Most men didn't have the right to vote either, just the landowners. If you look at when men got universal suffrage, and when women did, that's often close together. And then we're not even speaking of black men and women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States

"By 1776 at least 60 percent of adult white males were able to vote, and the proportion expanded significantly by 1787"

So most white men could vote since the country was founded.

Property qualifications were then steadily dropped (and never added for white men):
"The 1828 presidential election was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states"
"The last state to abolish property qualification was North Carolina in 1856."

Do you consider the civil rights movement "close together" with now? Because that's the same amount of time it was between all men getting the right to vote and women being given the right to vote.

And where are we seeing "no war but class war"?

In the TikTok from OP: "(This is the tiktok in question https://www.tiktok.com/@elisse.01/video/7198671535073316142?lang=en)"

Fair enough, thanks for the discussion.

it's the main reason a lot of women put up with men approaching & making them uncomfortable

Yes! This is a large part of why I don't think that needing to approach women is the problem - women generally want to be approached.

You're downplaying the scale & importance this factor has on men

Are you saying that men needing to always be on the lookout for women to approach is the problem?
The only other thing I could think would be the impact of being rejected, but that's what I was saying too.

These issues are being touted by a large part of society (I'd say even society as a whole) and you wanna just shoehorn that to just "decide what you believe"?? How about we tell society to be consistent with that they preach (& I understand that takes years but we can't just leave it in the air like that.)

Oh for sure we should change society. Hell, that's the reason I'm on here - I think that having these conversations helps shift society's expectations.

I don't think you're being sincere here. The answer to your first question is society conforming men to their gender role and you wanna minimize that to "that's the social contract right now". And your answer to that second question ignores the fact that women have already been freed from their role, they're just choosing not to approach as it's more convenient for them that way.

I was being sincere, apologies for not coming off that way. I was trying to focus on what one guy can do, and there's nothing a guy can do about the expectation that they approach women - either they conform to their role or they miss their shot. It sucks, and it's nerve-wracking, but it's the only practical way that you're going to talk to her. Though I'm curious about your thoughts on dating apps.

I could see how being redirected to liberal causes could feel like dismissing your concerns. If you bring bring up an issue that isn't being talked about, and people react with "oh. yeah we're already working on that - wanna join?" it might feel like they're more interested in you joining their cause than in the issue you're raising. After all, they haven't been talking about the issue you raised, so how can they say they're already working on it?

The reason is that the left is fighting for all kinds of issues, and when different groups talk about the issues they face, they start to see common themes.

Conversations like "people hate you because you're gay? People hate me because I'm lesbian!" end up with people working together under the same banner, despite the unique issues that each group faces. As more groups voice the issues they face, they find solidarity in existing banners. For example, being trans is completely different than being gay or lesbian (it's not who you're attracted to, it's who you are), but gay/lesbian folks heard trans issues and said "lots of that stuff is what we're already working on - wanna join?" This wasn't dismissing trans issues, it was making both voices stronger. LGBT folks unite under the same banner, and issues for one group are issues for them all (do not try to minimize trans issues to someone that's gay/lesbian).

The fact is that men (specifically cis het white men) are relative newcomers in the "getting shit on" world. This is NOT minimizing the issues we face - they're real and should be taken seriously - they're just new (see: women got the right to vote about 100 years ago). Folks on the left offering a "mission" are not asking you to ignore your issues in favor of theirs, they're saying "oh dang that's messed up. Add it the list, let's go fix this shit." I really like that dang dad's focus on solidarity - We fight for them. They fight for us.

yeah well it seems that the left is rather fixated on blaming men (specifically cis het white men) as a collective, even men who fit in the marginalized identities that they say they want to protect, rather than saying everyone is getting shit, so lets work together to fix it.

Also an understandable reaction. The left often talks about "systemic" problems - things not caused by an individual, but by how things are set up. It's not hard to see why men as a collective would be blamed for systemic problems - after all, only men could vote up until 100 years ago. But the left is realizing that it isn't cis het white men that were the problem, since they're also getting shit on now too - it's the rich. It's always been the rich. And that's why we're seeing "no war but class war."

To be clear, there are still folks talking about men as a collective being a problem. My only advise is to mentally correct "men" to "the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of" and not take it personally.

Oof yeah that was not a kind reaction. Too often people dehumanize folks they disagree with, and laughing at Peterson crying is clearly that.

Just to provide a contrast, here's a left winger's empathetic take on Jordan Peterson: https://www.tiktok.com/@watchfulcoyote/video/7227861727948361003

I hadn't seen that dang dad, thanks for sharing. His videos seem like they're explicitly not dismissing male issues though? He's saying "these issues are real and valid. Fixing these issues is not something men alone can do."

I generally agree that a lot of the issues men face come from the current power structure. I agree with that dang dad that the current power structure fucks men over.

You're painting "give a man a mission" as a bad thing, but I'm not really sure what the alternative is. If there are issues men face (which there are), men need to be involved in solving them, right?

that a communist or socialist revolution would better the lives of anyone, as in history, it truly hasnt and in fact has been more destructive to peoples lives.

Things like universal healthcare and social safety nets have made people's lives better in other countries, and would make people's lives better here. Having accessible mental health care would directly help men.

the presumtion that men have any privilage that men have some one up over women. and have never been the victims of a society that they themselves built to benefit themselves, but has them suffering

Nobody on the left things that individual men have never been the victims of society - e.g. toxic masculinity. The whole point is that everyone is getting shit on right now.

I agree. I don't doubt that this has ever happened, but I don't think it's remotely common.

And if/when it does happen, the girl is absolutely in the wrong.

Expecting men to initiate isn't ideal, but it's not the primary expectation that's hurting men. Men are hurt when their perceived value and self worth are tied to their success with women.

I'd compare men's expectation to initiate to women being expected to wear bikinis - it can make them uncomfortable to be on display, and ideally there wouldn't be pressure for them to do that, but it's really not the main problem that they face.

We're not talking about media tho

I don't think a discussion of what "society" expects can happen without discussing media - it shapes our culture.

Many of your elaborations on what a "good man" is are just tips on how to live life authentically

Do you think good men shouldn't live authentically? I'd assume most people would think good men live life authentically.

Mainstream society tells them to just have confidence, to not bother them and leave them alone, just be friends with them, but they also expect men to be the initiators in talking to women at the same time.

I think when either of us use broad terms like "mainstream society", "PUA/TRP", "feminism", etc, we're talking about different things - not because either of us is wrong, just because they have fuzzy borders. I think we can agree on the different things men are "sold" and how many of them feel contradictory:

• Don't bother women vs if you're interested you need to initiate
• "Men are the problem" vs "he's good with women"
• Women can make the first move vs they often don't (or it's too subtle)

Like you said, these are usually pieces of practical advice, and different things try to "pitch" you on different views - ultimately it's up to us to decide what we believe.

For me, the way that makes most sense to do that is to keep asking why.

Why shouldn't you bother women? Because it makes them uncomfortable.
Why does it make them uncomfortable? Because they've had bad experiences in the past.
Why have they had bad experiences? Because some men act like assholes when they get rejected.
Why do some men act like assholes? Because getting rejects feels like being told they're a failure.
Why is that? Because they believe their success is tied to their success with women.\

Why should you make the first move? Because for better or worse, that's the social contract right now.
Why is that the social contract? Men have been cast as pursuers and women pursued.
Why? Answers vary, but it ultimately doesn't matter since you're not gonna be able to change it by yourself.

So, with that in mind, how can you deal with the reality that you'll often need to initiate if you're interested?

You can't change the fact that she's had bad experiences in the past, so your primary goal in your approach is to make her comfortable. She's worried you're one of the guys who gets mad if they get rejected, how can you show that you aren't? Know your shit. "Hey, have you gotten yelled at for turning down a guy yet tonight? I can try to muster something up for you if you want." If they're not interested - that's OK. Be nice, accept a no, and move on.

You're right, the problem is in people tying their worth to somebody else's interest in them, we were just specifically discussing men. Women taking rejection poorly doesn't mean than men can.

Both men and women are taught that rejection is an affront to them personally, though through different ways. Men are told that success is partly defined by their success with women, and rejection is a woman calling him a failure. Women are told that men have low standards and are always dtf, so if a guy rejects her then it's a huge diss.

Those things aren't true though, and both genders have their share of shit to work through.

the average man (most men) dont have more power than the average women.

I actually disagree on this.

1. Money is power. Men are stereotypically the primary household earner. Women in those relationships rely on the men to provide an income, and men's ability to take that away gives them power. Obviously, this isn't strictly a good thing for the guy, since it comes with stress for him to provide, but it does skew power in the relationship.

2. Consider a normal distribution, with the x axis being "strength" and the y axis being "number of people" - lots of people are medium strong, few people are very strong or very weak. If you split that into two - one for men and one for women, and compare the top 1% strongest men and women, the men would be stronger. Since it's a normal distribution, it also shows that the average man is stronger than the average woman. There are still many, many women that are stronger than the average guy, but as a population men are stronger.

I submit that "power" follows a normal distribution as well. I'm sure we agree that the top 1% of men are more powerful than the top 1% of women, so it would follow that the average man would be more powerful than the average woman.

Feminism is not cancer. Can you talk about some of the issues that get thrown back in men's faces?

Yeah it is basic social skills haha. I do understand it though (but do not excuse it), especially with what @Mshuser has been saying.

Rejection sucks for everyone, but if your self worth is tied up in how successful you are when approaching women, rejection becomes a judgement of your value. Instead of hearing "no" (which could be for a million different reasons) they hear "you are not enough" (which would be a mean thing to say), and they react to the latter.