This is giving the same energy as those thinkpieces on why young men are abandoning the Dems. Notice how the question is always "how do we reeducate them into agreeing with us" and never "what grievances do they have and how can we be more welcoming?"
Edit: Of course schoolboys should not be watching Tate videos, in fact no one should.
Yeah this is basically "have you tried turning young men off and on again" but for politics
The complete lack of self-reflection is wild - like maybe if half the population is tuning out there might be something worth examining beyond just assuming they need more lectures
They don’t try to represent you. They just want to continue status quo and need your votes. Or not, the seats are generally safe due to gerrymandering, so only national elections really swing and governor in purple states… and it’s fine to be in the minority because then they can say HEY WERE FIGHTING FOR YOU without doing anything. Dems actually prefer to be in the minority so they can pretend to be principled and fighting for things you want. Then while in power VOILA they are powerless still to change anything
A big issue (among many) with curricula like this one is that the definitions are too broad to begin with and tend to quickly encompass anything that causes mild discomfort or disagreement. Moreover, these ideas depict masculinity as inherently problematic, which I vehemently reject.
The government’s new strategy to prevent official violence against women and girls will be built around three goals: preventing radicalisation of young men, stopping abusers and supporting victims.
What beliefs count as "radical"? Who gets to decide which beliefs are acceptable?What counts as "abuse"? Statistics used to support these programs also greatly overestimate the number of victims because the definition of abuse is so vague, and the questions are leading, causing women to overreport events as assault or abuse that they previously hadn't categorized that way themselves.
Training children that boys are always one step away from becoming violent rapists and abusers is how you get more radicalization, not less. It's how you get more lonely young people too afraid to talk to a stranger, let alone have sex. It's how you breed resentment and divisiveness between the sexes. As you point out, though, this is the only move in their playbook, so they'll keep attempting failed strategies like this one.
As a tangential point, I teach HS and for our speech unit, I give them an example speech in which I argue we need recess for high schoolers, with one reason being the developmental and brain differences between boys and girls.
For a variety of reasons, boys just need to move more in school. Boys are more competitive and combative, while girls are more cooperative. It's in our nature. This is also the reason I turn a blind eye to friendly horseplay in the halls. Idgaf, that shit is fun and play is important.
I try to combat some of the anti-male sentiment in schools as much as I can. I'm a woman, and I think it's important for students to hear me speak positively about masculinity and femininity. My female colleagues incessantly use catchphrases like "toxic masculinity" and use "white males" as a contemptuous insult. It's bananas that they get away with that kind of rhetoric.
Training children that boys are always one step away from becoming violent rapists and abusers is how you get more radicalization, not less. ... so they'll keep attempting failed strategies like this one.
It's not a failed strategy. Increased radicalization is the goal, as it further justifies their position and legitimizes their movement.
It's not about solving problems, it's about getting more power. The bigger and more challenging the problem you claim to be tackling, the more power people will give you to tackle it.
Jesus fucking Christ no. Go read the evolution of cooperation, and then go read sources about how early socialization leades to the exact differences you're describing.
Yup. Just how the question is always "Why is the working class becoming Nazis?" and never "What problems arise with mass immigration and how can we mitigate them or work on compromises?"
In fact, when was the last time anyone in politics or media or academia considered the concept of compromising on any issue? Like 2011 or so? We've been intentionally polarized.
when was the last time anyone in politics or media or academia considered the concept of compromising on any issue
This seems to be their one core belief, just being stubborn. Not letting 'the chuds' have a win. Its infected everything and sleepy conservatives figured it out and they are now doing the same.
Its very radical, if they take ground on anything large, small or petty, they refuse to cede on it at any or all cost.
I live in a very white part of Sydney and work in an area with lots of south Asian immigration and the difference in infrastructure is quite noticeable. I get annoyed at what a shithole the suburb is and I don't actually live there. I've been at this job like 5 years and in that 5 years the park I walk through daily has been taken over by a group of homeless people living in the area families are supposed to use for functions. There just isn't any support in these areas and they get a bunch of immigrants just dumped there because it's a relatively inexpensive place to live. It's hardly surprising that the anti immigration right is doing better in outer suburbs (although I will say Australia has a very weak right at the moment)
On the topic of boys one of the interesting things about Australia is that we have a relatively small voting gender gap. Even with young men. Here is a poll from the other day for gen z women and men
Women are more likely to vote for the greens but they both end up being massive Labor votes on 2pp (Australia has instant run off preferences so that's what matters)
And I think it's probably compulsory voting. Men are just switching off outside of politically engaged freaks (ie rightoids) in other countries but they get dragged in the voting booth here.
So I think all the programs like the above do is disengage men or entrench them in the rightoid political views they already have.
I don't understand the obsession with Tate. I've seen people on so many different subreddits saying "There's a huge rise in misogyny because of Tate!". I seem him listed specifically as much as I do "manosphere" stuff.
Never mind that it's ridiculous to pin this predominantly on one guy, or that he probably got popular due to the moral panic giving him constant publicity, but his main audience isn't like white British middle school boys. If you ever saw that breach that was shared around months ago, you'd see that it's not exactly a demographic who would have exactly had progressive views of women if not for one grifter.
Though I imagine many know this, even if just subconsciously, and use it as a scapegoat to avoid any sort of responsibility or reflection.
Schoolboys watch Tate videos because of their grievances, and turn to Tate specifically because male teachers have been pushed out of the school system while their parents are shite. They don't have any male role models to teach 'em right.
Yeah, I’m sure this sort of stuff is motivated by legitimate economic grievances and the Dem’s refusal to engage in class consciousness. How would the Dems be “welcoming” to these things, except by just dropping that little which manages to distinguish them from Republicans.
my favorite part of reddit is seeing what people will hallucinate me being in favor of. I could make a post saying i support vegetarians and I'd get replies being like "so you like Hitler??"
I’m not remarking on anything that has anything to do with what I think you are or are not in favor of.
I’m saying it’s a joke to talk about this shit as if the source of it all is just economics, or as if these types of dudes have legitimate grievances secretly underlying their stated grievances about not getting sex and women not being subservient, and if we’d just address those true, unstated grievances, they would stop hating girls and women. The sub talks as if the guys in question are all just disillusioned Bernie Bros or something. They are not. They never were any such thing.
If you drill down into any genuine chauvinist of any gender or sexuality, you might find some economic grievance, but mostly you'll find the exact same grievance: they were molested or physically abused as children.
It's such an incredibly common and predictable pathology that it's hard to overstate the institutional negligence and psychological terrorism of this sort of campaign, doubly so in early education. The question is not "will this convince a sexist boy", it's "what effect will this have on a boy who is currently being molested or beaten at home".
Oh give me a fucking break. And is this true of all the genuine racists and homophobes of the world as well? Pedophilia is waaaaay more common than anyone could ever imagine, I guess, it must practically be the norm.
No, some people are just plain fucking hateful. They just have irredeemably shitty personalities. A lot of them enjoy being hateful and get off on it. Most of them, I’m quite sure, are the products of parenting and upbringing, but more likely permissive, lazy, apathetic and ignorant parenting than sexually perverse.
I’ve known people like this. Philandering man-child of a father who never instills any discipline but also loses all interest in the boy when he fails to meet expectations. Insecure, SAHM of a mother, obsessed with her physical appearance, perpetually suspicious and resentful of her cheating husband, seeks to secure the son’s loyalty by granting his every whim (including unlimited gaming and internet access, of course) and treating him like the center of the universe. The doomed marriage ultimately falls apart, the son blames the mother, because she’s now seeking other men out of economic necessity and she was always the pushover anyway, the father is too remote and doesn’t care enough to be hurt by blame. She finally starts trying to impose some sort of rules but it’s far too late and only inspires more hate. The boy is now an overgrown spoiled brat pig bully.
They don’t deserve to be “listened to”, they’re lost causes and belong in fucking gulags.
For the level of virulent bigotry you brought up, I'm in agreement that it's not a simple consequence of economic grievance. It's a consequence of deep psychological wounding. Of course it doesn't deserve to be "listened to" at face value, because that makes the same mistake as these campaigns of thinking it's a discursive problem and not a pathological one. It's funny that you'd give a clear example of neglect and instability as something to be dismissed as a cause of serious sexual pathology.
And yes, this absolutely applies to racists and homophobes. The most viriulent racists tend to be ex-cons who have seen the worst of the prison system (or, conversely, victims of violent crime) and the worst homophobes also victims of molestation. It's insane to say they're a lost cause when the cause is preventing these abuses in the first place, and an institution that has a direct responsibility to prevent abuse should not be targeting a moralizing campaign against the type of person who is likely suffering from it on the grounds that the consequence of their suffering makes them an undesirable.
It's funny that you'd give a clear example of neglect and instability as something to be dismissed as a cause of serious sexual pathology.
“I’m not saying that bad parenting and neglect should be dismissed. I’m dismissing the notion that childhood sexual abuse is the explanation for most cases of misogyny. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s other forms of trauma and bad upbringing. Sometimes it’s just baked into the shitty culture and/or religious indoctrination.
It's insane to say they're a lost cause when the cause is preventing these abuses in the first place,
I am all for preventing it in the first place. That is NOT the ‘cause’ being advocated on this sub. The majority on the sub think that these types of men can be compromised with. That if we just listen to, and attend to their grievances that we can all be comrades.
and an institution that has a direct responsibility to prevent abuse should not be targeting a moralizing campaign against the type of person who is likely suffering from it on the grounds that the consequence of their suffering makes them an undesirable.
It is not about the fact that they are undesirable. It is about the fact that these dudes deliberately seek to inflict harm on other people. These shitbags go around actively advocating for the sexual harassment, beating and rape and murder of “foids” and withdrawing legal rights from “foids”.
Oh but it’s moralizing to say that societal detritus like this shouldn’t be allowed to wield influence. Yet, somehow, it is not moralizing to make pleas on behalf of the supposed wounded inner child of the violent, hateful bigot.
Prevention should be a priority but, let’s face it, there’s little prevention possible when any and every retard is encouraged to reproduce. There is no licensing for parenting, society is at the mercy of its most dumbfuck breeders and can only try, at best, to clean up after them. Once they’ve already done that much damage there’s little that can be done to fix it. They rarely ever come around and they absolutely never come around from being catered to and coddled.
I specifically said sexual abuse and physical abuse. Sexual abuse is far less rare than it should be, physical abuse is still rampant. If you want to add in negligence and other less dramatic traumas and general mental illness then yes, it's basically guaranteed that this is what underlies a virulent bigot and especially one driven to extreme violence.
If you want to dismiss lesser grievances because of the existence of violent pathological extremists, then at least take the causes and factors of violent pathological extremism seriously and treat them as the real problems they are. I'm happy to take a stand that that is a moral requirement if you want to pretend to care about the victims of such people, who are also necessarily direct victims of these causes.
I know people who were sexually and physically abused as children and yet they are some of the most intelligent, empathetic, well adjusted, high functioning and happy people today. Being a victim does not automatically make one an abuser. There is more to it than that, and being a victim is not a requirement for becoming a violent, abusive, asshole. Excessive privilege and power can be enough to do it. No, I am not entertaining the idea that every single one of these hate filled fuckers are really victims.
Why are you people are even in the Marxist sub If you're gonna analyze everything in the most dumbass capitalistic slop anyway, sure dude it was always about the individual and they need to pull themselves by their moral bootstraps, it's not the dumbass culture war that people like you not only participated in but are still defending to this day, radicalizing an entirety of a generation to the point that one that the number one Gen Z cultural figure is someone who says women shouldn't even vote. Sure it might be all because these guys are not getting laid or whatever but why is not that a legitimate grivence? Releationships are more valuable than any currency in the world and some people are going to bitter about not having them, that's always normal and if society handles these people gracefully and encrouges people to help them everything works out in the end, instead we turned these people into the villain of the culture war because men feeling sad and having mental issues was not in line with the official narrative of the identity politics that men could struggle and have their own separate issues as well. these boys were basically humiliated at every turn for simply trying to talk about their issues, they found out that whatever they do they will have no place in the national conversation so they naturally have turned to people who are trying to destroy the dogma of the liberal world order, weather it's Fuentes, Tate, or anyone else. This is the dynamic that's playing out and if people were smart at the very least they wouldn't repeat it for the next generation but they're not and it's gonna get much much worse.
Oh wow yeah such brilliant material analysis there dude. Go fuck yourself, you don’t know shit about me. Using “culture war bad” to defend people being hideously hateful shit bags isn’t “Marxist”. These sick fucks are not “sad”, they’re just sick fucks. They are not yearning for relationships, they proudly say so themselves. And no, not getting laid is NOT a legitimate fucking grievance, no matter who you are, no matter what sex you are, or your orientation or identity or whatever, LMFAO. Literally no one is entitled to getting laid and no one’s going to die if they don’t get it. And this extremely vile, hardcore misogynist shit goes back way the fuck before woke insanity and the backlash.
I know that you're a dumbass that clearly can't argue and has some bone to pick with these people while your head was so up in your ass that you don't realize that dumbasses like you created this situation in the first place. Again all it would've taken was basically being human and showing grace to these people, who the Fuck are you to tell people something isn't a real problem anyway ? Loneliness is as much as an issue as poverty if not more, these people were lonely, society should've helped them, it didn't , dumbasses like you made the issue worse by being completely obtuse at every step of the way and now we all have to live with it. At least don't be so stupid to double down on it and repeat it for another generation, but I know this is a big ask for completely r-slurreds like you, go protest in some pussy March or no kings protest in some shit I'm sure that's a much more suited intellectual playing field for your intellectual capacity instead of confronting actual problems.
Retard, there is nothing “leftist” or “communist” or “class struggle” or Marxist or Leninist or Maoist about internally ugly AF males not getting pussy. There’s nothing revolutionary about rapists. One need not be a libtard to be disgusted, repulsed by grown men with the intellects of infants and a total lack of empathy, dingus. This is just how all the normal people operate.
“Loneliness is as much of an issue as poverty if not more” LMAO you’re fucking hilarious.
Even if there was the slightest shred of truth to that, your gross friends are not lonely. Maybe you are and so you assume those freaks are too, but no, they are not. Loneliness is not the word for lack of sex. You have to want actual intimacy and affection and connection with someone in order to be lonely. You can’t want that from those who you despise and consider subhuman. Normal human feelings don’t work like that.
Only, this isn't about Dems or Republicans. It's a British article for British policy. We have more parties to choose from, and it's less 50/50 than the US. A lad could easily vote Green, LD, Labour, Reform, Conservatives. There's dynamism there.
It's moreso about respecting girls. As a girl who's been harassed in public by strangers and assaulted as a kid in school by boys who didn't even know my name, this policy can't come sooner.
Most of the people replying to you are not Brits lol. Nor have they grown up with a female British perspective within education.
I cant take greviences from men who feel neglected by either major political pary in the u.s. seriously. They're so massively overrepresented, not just in politics but in every sphere of life, and if one day they woke up in opposite land they'd start blowing shit up.
Here is a question that people from your stance will never answer: if you can picture a version of the democrat party that appealed enough to men, what would it look like?
i know the feds are hooting and hollering seeing a socialist claim the gender that makes up the majority of the laborer class is over-represented in politics
I’ll answer. For one thing, the democrat and republican parties would be dissolved and replaced by a worker’s party. The worker’s party would fight, in elections and through direct action, to provide a broad, robust apparatus of support for workers, those seeking work, those seeking rehabilitation from drugs, and work to ensure the safety, education, and prosperity of all people.
One hypothetical example of a policy goal for this party would be the institution/reinforcement of a general education level for all. This means all students upon graduation would be expected to have an excellent grasp of literacy and mathematics, and have had a broad exposure to various fields of science and the humanities. Students who express an interest or naturally excel in some specific area would have further education provided to them, but for graduates with no precise plan, they would be encouraged to pursue some sort of trade, their education/apprenticeship in which would also be covered.
In the face of criminal activity, persistent drug abuse, sexual abuse, etc, in or about a school, offending students would be identified, prosecuted or punished as appropriate, and be evaluated by a social worker/LCSW who would then create an education plan fashioned to that student’s particular needs. Depending on the severity or level of intervention needed to ensure that student’s success, they would be reintegrated into their original school, sent to attend a continuation school, or have their schooling provided one-on-one(or other small, focused group of some arbitrary size necessary for close oversight) in a secure housing facility.
Much of this is spiritually close to what we have already, with some expansions on existing programs and institution of new programs. The safe, enthusiastic education of the young is fundamental to the prosperity of the individual, their community, and ultimately to their nation and world.
There would of course be circumstances where children of a given sex or ethnicity or other demographic might need their education or educational environment tailored to their needs, and such a scheme as I outlined would first provide that child the opportunity to learn within their broader community, then, if this isn’t possible, they would have an education plan tailored to suit them, and this plan would be realized either at that same school or at a dedicated school for the purpose. There would be no presuppositions of a student’s intelligence or ability to collaborate with others, no student or students of a specified demographic background would be singled out for preference or exclusion. Children should be taught to be curious, considerate, tolerant, and proactive. They should feel empowered to affect the world around them. Teachers and administrators for schools should be cherished, supported, and must always have a means available to resolve any issues preventing them from effectively educating their students or complicating their responsibilities to their work. Students with criminal records and teachers of students who display especially antisocial behavior should have even more benefit and attention provided by a system of support. It should be virtually impossible for any student to ultimately fail to graduate, and it should be easy for graduates to either continue their education, seek a trade, etc.
Neither the dems nor republicans represent the interests of the average person, let alone the average man. Neither party militantly supports the rights the average person has to benefit from their own labor. Neither party fights to protect/restore the environment, without which we will all die. Neither party fights to expand what meager systems of support are available, and in those instances they do, they frequently compromise their position to benefit private “special” interest groups or companies.
I’ll put it this way: many CEOs are men, but almost all men aren’t CEOs. The solution isn’t to supplant male CEOs with female CEOs, but to reevaluate the contribution of our labor such that the title “CEO” no longer implies grotesque wealth or power. The solution isn’t to focus on empowering one demographic or another, as though you’re moving weights around a scale, but to empower everyone who has heretofore been subjected to the whims, the laws, and the punishments of power hungry and avaricious regimes. That is something closer to what I want to see.
Haven't they done that for decades throughout the country already and they still somehow produce people who are anti-communist by middle age because "freedom" and "making money". Don't get me wrong, I wish it would have the same result as D.A.R.E. but maybe the left is so lame that they make rich geezers' propaganda look cool.
I love the liberal loop of "Try thing->It Backfires->"Hmm, wow, this issue is getting worse, that means we're not doing it enough!"->Double down->Repeat until something breaks"
The UK seems to be on a speed-run to enact every stupid, naive, inane, overbearing, paranoid, self-destructive and authoritarian policy possible, at least when it comes to social issues.
Has corporate mandatory sensitivity trainings made people less racist/ sexist/ etc.? No it has just told them that they have to keep their mouths shut in public and not allow themselves to be even suspected of wrongthink, for example by making a joke, or else they will be punished which only makes them believe it doubly so in private if they are racist/ sexist etc. and it makes previously non-bigoted people become bitter and upset at the totalitarian thought-control they are subjected to which often leads to them adopting chavinistic ideas as some misguided attempt of rebelling against it. The same dynamic will play out on stereoids when applied to boys and young men, by nature a rebellious demographic.
As countless feminist groups and circles, literal whole generations of feminism, have discovered before, banning men or "male oppressors" and only interacting with men who totally agree with all feminist doctrine, either by true faith or by being cowed into it, does not actually extinguish Misogyny or "the partriarchy" because it turns out the underlying cause of these phenomena resides in women, too. It turns out women are just as much "upholding the patriarchy" or doing what is then called "internalized" Misogyny. And by the way most anti-racist groups have found this out as well in regard to racism.
It's fitting that liberals have turned on JK Rowling in recent years because they seem to be dead set on governing like a pack of Doleres Umbridges. In spite of her mostly tepid liberal politics I have to say that Rowling did a fantastic job of identifying a certain type of passive aggresive scold that worms his/her way into positions of authority in liberal institutions just so he/she can excercise petty sadism over others.
Has corporate mandatory sensitivity trainings made people less racist/ sexist/ etc.? No it has just told them that they have to keep their mouths shut in public and not allow themselves to be even suspected of wrongthink, for example by making a joke, or else they will be punished which only makes them believe it doubly so in private if they are racist/ sexist etc.
Liberals seem to have this weird lack of theory of mind thing where they don't understand that just because people have stopped publicly expressing a certain belief doesn't mean they have stopped holding that belief. One of the benefits of holding the hegemonic ideology is you never have to learn how to politically code switch in order to avoid being punished for having the wrong politics.
The mischaracterisation that this is just boys being radicalised and they just need to be lectured into being good people is so insane I struggle to believe it's not malicious rather than incompetent. Any genuine state desire to deal with the growing sex divide fueled by social media would be best enacted by enforcing genuine mixing from the earliest age and facilitating and encouraging friendship from nursery onwards. I have consistently been shocked that in our supposedly liberal times so few adults see an issue with half the population largely interacting with the other half in antagonistic forms only. This has actually gotten considerably worse as children spend so little time outside in what was previously often mixed sex neighbourhood friend groups. If your interactions with the opposite sex are so limited in a society, of course friction will naturally take hold and exponentially grow. Literally everything comes from seeing the two groups as "others" despite being in close proximity, and coming to a head when confused children's hormones suddenly demand that proximity and must deal with the confusion and devastation that comes from adolescent relationships... or, increasingly, lack of adolescent relationships.
In the past we could at least rely on things like benevolent sexism to keep society from falling apart. And previously, children were vastly better socialised in general with far more buy in to society and belief that they should follow certain standards. As that has collapsed - ravaged in large part by screen time, and downstream of adult financial woes - we are seeing the fruits of our failure to integrate the sexes become more extreme.
The mischaracterisation that this is just boys being radicalised and they just need to be lectured into being good people is so insane I struggle to believe it's not malicious rather than incompetent.
That genuinely is what liberals believe though. In their own heads their beliefs are so self-evidently true that all they have to do in order to spread them is scold people into agreeing with them.
This is all just middle class to very wealthy women judging what the problems are in the world based on what most offends them online, especially those with precious little to offend them in real life and consequentially delusional levels of entitlement and sensitivity.
Yes I'm sure you saw some very nasty, misogynistic Andrew Tate video on the internet. I'm sure you're seeing that stuff way more than you were 15 years ago. But that doesn't mean domestic violence, rape, workplace discrimination or any form of misogyny has increased in proportion to you seeing some stupid videos, or in fact that it has increased at all.
Its that they see something on the internet that makes them mad and want to get it deleted and censored, and for retribution to exacted on those who posted it, but "he made me very angry" is a bit embarassing to present to others and accept for yourself as your actual motivation, and struggles to get traction,so it has to be that its actually causing and reflecting an unbelievably intense growth of real life violence and abuse.
millenials are more blatantly racist than their parents because of the Internet. anyway, why would you expect content criticism boys and men to have a negative effect on them that could radicalise them, but not for anti women content to have an effect on women?
The same people who insist on associating masculinity is a toxic concept that needs thorough deconstruction with condescending lectures will act aghast that boys and men look up to Andrew Tate and Vladimir Putin.
My understanding, unless things have changed, is that, in the UK, sexual assault and domestic violence against men is statistically lumped into the category of violence against women and children.
How does preventing violence against women and girls fit into Labours plans for violent brutalizing austerity that will eventually hand over the country to the explicit fascists?
Well you see if we bring in enough religious fundamentalists from the most violently misogynistic countries on earth then it will all balance out somehow
An internal Home Office report last year concluded that an online “manosphere” is helping to fuel extreme misogyny and needs to be stopped in its tracks through official government policy.
To address this, the government will announce fresh restrictions targeting social media companies in order to make Britain the “hardest place for children to access harmful content online”, which will add to the Online Safety Act, which came into effect this year.
The strategy will address the lack of tools for parents and teachers to challenge harmful attitudes that are so easy to find online, a government source has said.
Nah bro, jump in. At this point I don't even care anymore, and furthermore I'm becoming more and more convinced that there are people who conspire to do this dumbass type of shit on purpose to keep it all failing. That way grant money for more studies and grants for programs like this keep flowing.
It's hard to stomach thinking that anyone who actually gives a fuck about bettering that stated goals of feminism actually thinks this will work. It's either someone is trying to grift on feminist policy to keep the government money rolling in, or women and their goals really are this stupid (which I don't think)
It's a bunch of narcissists who can never admit they did something wrong or take no for an answer. Every shitty thing in the world honestly stems from this fact.
It's hard to stomach thinking that anyone who actually gives a fuck about bettering that stated goals of feminism actually thinks this will work. It's either someone is trying to grift on feminist policy to keep the government money rolling in, or women and their goals really are this stupid (which I don't think)
One of the side effects of constantly bitching about "mansplaining" is subconsciously convincing themselves that being a stupid arrogant asshole is something only men do.
Young men are going to literally defect from the west at this rate and westoids and nafoids are going to be left holding their dicks in their hands after they escalate their stupid wars, all the while talking about how incredible feminism is. Can it be anymore of a joke than it already is?
No one has any time for this shit at all anymore. The west is going to completely collapse in less than 10 years. With all the degenerate saber rattling and comments like Rutte made on how, "Europe needs to prepare to fight a war like our fathers and grandfathers did.", any young men who still want to have a life are going to find it elsewhere.
Maybe the EU can invest in a program to teach 20 million immigrants that emigrate from all the countries that NATO bombed for 20 years, on how they should respect feminism instead, that will be a huge success I am certain.
There are plenty of countries in the world that aren't interested in mass-extermination wars and whom will gladly and wholly value young men and their wonderful sons.
I'm surprised there hasn't been, or maybe I haven't seen, a trend similar to the TradCath stuff of Euro men converting to Islam. There's men who complain about feminism to the point they become obsessed with the gender wars, and there's people complaining about Muslim immigrants being sexist against women, that seems like fertile ground for an MRA/incel to Islam pipeline. Supposedly Tate converted to Islam or something for that reason (unless I misunderstood), and he supposedly has a lot of influence with young men and boys. But the trend doesn't seem to exist for some reason.
Nafoids will be all outsourced to Ahmedabad by that point. Judging by how many isreali twitter lions turned out to be indians, it cound happens even sooner that I'd expect
I'm pretty sure the problem isn't young men are misogynist, hate women or something, but mostly because they don't have a healthy outlet for them to be who they are without others being overly judgemental, called as incels, etc.
I’m sure the boys won’t react badly to being explicitly taught that under liberalism they’re second class citizens instead of it being merely strongly implied as it is now
Anyone else read demonic males? Feminists criticized it for the suggestion the men are violent for biology, but thats really begging the question. The book makes a clear case for male violence in humans' closest relatives, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans. The fact that the fifth great ape, the booboo is nonviolent is explored deeply to see how that species seemed to escape the biology of.male violence- and it really offers us as humans some great wisdom.
Boys do need to be to taught that propogandists will seek to use them as tools and weapons by convincing them that women are others- but girls need to learn similar lessons. Women are dehumanized to men as sex objects and srrvants, but men are dehumanized as superman- feelingless, not allowed to be weak, scared, to feel the range of human emotions or have true human conection. Yes, these lessons need to break through into our culture. You are not immune to propaganda. I am not immune to propaganda
I haven't read it completely, but I know one thing: the criticism of it comes not only from "feminists" but also from primatology and other disciplines that study human evolution.
Gorillas actually rarely exhibit aggressive behavior. I mean, they do have infanticide or fighting for dominance, but they don't form SEAL teams to murder their neighbors like chimpanzees or humans do.
Furthermore, the author is selectively choosing species to support his argument, ignoring bonobos—which exhibit violent behavior far less frequently than chimpanzees, where females are dominant, and do not display hostile territoriality.
The key point is that humans and bonobos share just as many genes as humans and chimpanzees, a fact that was unpopular at the time the Demonic Males was published. After that, the author's attitude softened somewhat. He later wrote The Goodness Paradox.
Okay, so in my comment bonobo- autocorrected to booboo, so please go reread. No, the book goes into great depth about the bonobo, so however you got the impression the book ignored it was utterly incorrect
I think this criticism is more like, "Why do you treat them as an exception, since they are just as closely related to humans as chimpanzees are, and yet you insist that the human ancestor must have been chimpanzee-like rather than a mixture of both?" rather than he forgot to write about bonobos.
The author seems to have first arrived at the conclusion that "males are inherently violent," and then sought evidence in the primate world. He found it in chimps, which he then held up as the definitive example. While he did dedicate some space to explaining bonobos, which do not fit this conclusion, then when he effectively excluded them when defining "the essence of human nature."
Humans did not evolve from chimps. Humans, chimps, and bonobos all evolved from a last common ancestor. Therefore, when attempting to reconstruct the behavior of this unknown ancestor, it is necessary to refer to all three sources of information.
I mean, given that both humans and bonobos share concealed ovulation, social sexual behavior, and face-to-face copulation, why can't I selectively choose examples to argue that human ancestors were promiscuous hippies while chimps are the weird deviation?
The truth is closer to this: humans have a dual potential.
one can probably assume that the tribes that didn't nourish violent warriors were often dominated by other tribes that did.
that's where it really gets hairy, imo. humans can definitely be peaceful, but the violent humans always win because we're so fragile. in a second, your skull can be smashed by a stick or rock. even if you survive, you'll likely have permanent brain damage. it's deeply ingrained in us to placate violent people to lessen the damage on ourselves. we've all done it. violence and the threat of violence are still valuable tools, sadly. we let people get away with assault quite a bit.
I don't think these two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. A group of men constantly engaged in internal conflict cannot effectively conquer outsiders (or the brutal forces of nature). This is a fairly mainstream hypothesis about why Homo sapiens outcompeted Neanderthals: because we were more social.
The crucial point is that peace is neither accidental nor a matter of luck, but rather functional. Christopher Boehm (whose framework is highly regarded in hunter-gatherer studies) emphasizes that it was precisely the advent of lethal weapons that liberated us from chimpanzee-style dominance conflicts, because weaker individuals could easily kill abusive alpha males while they slept.
We do have information from existing nomadic hunter-gatherer societies (though one could argue whether they are a perfect representation of our ancestors), and they do have capital punishment, or interpersonal violence for things like infidelity, but overall they are far more egalitarian and cooperative than us, rather than constantly beating each other with sticks.
i agree, but they don't have to constantly be in conflict. violence just has to be the underlying power structure they used to get that "social cohesion" in at least some cases. it isn't that we're constantly clubbing each other with sticks, but the threat itself. we've taken it to an unfathomable level with body armor, riot shields, pepper spray, guns, drones, etc.
i know it's probably not normal, but violence and the threat of violence were a constant in my childhood.
I think you're describing a dominance hierarchy, which has indeed become much stronger than in our ancestors, and is manifested in the form of direct threats of violence.
Existing nomadic hunter-gatherers are characterized by radical egalitarianism; they vigilantly police the group for anyone displaying aggressive or bullying behavior and impose sanctions on those individuals. The weak combine to rule the strong. This is called reverse dominance hierarchy.
However, this structure fails when material conditions change and the weak are unable to successfully counter the strong through collective action. Then, another aspect of our nature begins to manifest itself, leading to the situation you are experiencing.
You're saying all of this when you say yourself you didn't read the book. The author did not make the conclusion you're saying he did. The examples of what humans and banonbos share that would lead them to be less violent go behind the examples you provided. He really leads the reader to ask why aren't humans more like bonobos and could they be?
This could work, somewhat, if the lessons are exclusively taught by males & if it somehow includes a lesson on misogyny also hurting males. Otherwise, it just won't work.
Most boys, beginning around puberty, exist in a self-reinforcing, self-replicating in-group whirlwind world of petty, low-level misogyny & homophobia. At the lowest level of reaction, this will be something funny they'll talk about in the locker room, at the highest level, this will be a radicalizing event.
This will literally not work if the instructor is anything but a heterosexual male holding a football or an M-16 or something.
Bitch Dependency is no laughing matter. Addiction to a bitch can fuck with your friends, your health, and, scary enough - even your money. It's a disease.
This is obviously an attempt to integrate all of the immigrant children to see women as human people. Every comment here missed the mark. Will it work? No, obviously not, but the mission is thinly disguised integration.
Not at all. Yes, liberals obfuscate and avoid the issue they occasionally point to of more sexist attitudes from largely Muslim immigrant groups. Sure, that's a hush hush element here. But it's absolutely not the case that this is just about that. There is a growing concern that boys - including white British boys - are overwhelmingly sexist and need to be re-educated.
Alternative headline : Government creates program to radicalize men and boys.
I sometimes wonder if that is the actual purpose: Accelerationism.
The alternative is a level of retardation I can't even fathom
I think you underestimate stupidity.
Precisely. Boys will grow resentful and rightfully so.
This is giving the same energy as those thinkpieces on why young men are abandoning the Dems. Notice how the question is always "how do we reeducate them into agreeing with us" and never "what grievances do they have and how can we be more welcoming?"
Edit: Of course schoolboys should not be watching Tate videos, in fact no one should.
Yeah this is basically "have you tried turning young men off and on again" but for politics
The complete lack of self-reflection is wild - like maybe if half the population is tuning out there might be something worth examining beyond just assuming they need more lectures
They don’t try to represent you. They just want to continue status quo and need your votes. Or not, the seats are generally safe due to gerrymandering, so only national elections really swing and governor in purple states… and it’s fine to be in the minority because then they can say HEY WERE FIGHTING FOR YOU without doing anything. Dems actually prefer to be in the minority so they can pretend to be principled and fighting for things you want. Then while in power VOILA they are powerless still to change anything
A big issue (among many) with curricula like this one is that the definitions are too broad to begin with and tend to quickly encompass anything that causes mild discomfort or disagreement. Moreover, these ideas depict masculinity as inherently problematic, which I vehemently reject.
What beliefs count as "radical"? Who gets to decide which beliefs are acceptable?What counts as "abuse"? Statistics used to support these programs also greatly overestimate the number of victims because the definition of abuse is so vague, and the questions are leading, causing women to overreport events as assault or abuse that they previously hadn't categorized that way themselves.
Training children that boys are always one step away from becoming violent rapists and abusers is how you get more radicalization, not less. It's how you get more lonely young people too afraid to talk to a stranger, let alone have sex. It's how you breed resentment and divisiveness between the sexes. As you point out, though, this is the only move in their playbook, so they'll keep attempting failed strategies like this one.
As a tangential point, I teach HS and for our speech unit, I give them an example speech in which I argue we need recess for high schoolers, with one reason being the developmental and brain differences between boys and girls.
For a variety of reasons, boys just need to move more in school. Boys are more competitive and combative, while girls are more cooperative. It's in our nature. This is also the reason I turn a blind eye to friendly horseplay in the halls. Idgaf, that shit is fun and play is important.
I try to combat some of the anti-male sentiment in schools as much as I can. I'm a woman, and I think it's important for students to hear me speak positively about masculinity and femininity. My female colleagues incessantly use catchphrases like "toxic masculinity" and use "white males" as a contemptuous insult. It's bananas that they get away with that kind of rhetoric.
It's not a failed strategy. Increased radicalization is the goal, as it further justifies their position and legitimizes their movement.
It's not about solving problems, it's about getting more power. The bigger and more challenging the problem you claim to be tackling, the more power people will give you to tackle it.
This is how you end up with life long resentment and revenge fantasies.
Jesus fucking Christ no. Go read the evolution of cooperation, and then go read sources about how early socialization leades to the exact differences you're describing.
Yup. Just how the question is always "Why is the working class becoming Nazis?" and never "What problems arise with mass immigration and how can we mitigate them or work on compromises?"
In fact, when was the last time anyone in politics or media or academia considered the concept of compromising on any issue? Like 2011 or so? We've been intentionally polarized.
This seems to be their one core belief, just being stubborn. Not letting 'the chuds' have a win. Its infected everything and sleepy conservatives figured it out and they are now doing the same.
Its very radical, if they take ground on anything large, small or petty, they refuse to cede on it at any or all cost.
It would be kind of cool if they were radical about something worth a damn.
God imagine if just 10% of the energy poured into the culture war was spent trying to improve the lives of workers.
I live in a very white part of Sydney and work in an area with lots of south Asian immigration and the difference in infrastructure is quite noticeable. I get annoyed at what a shithole the suburb is and I don't actually live there. I've been at this job like 5 years and in that 5 years the park I walk through daily has been taken over by a group of homeless people living in the area families are supposed to use for functions. There just isn't any support in these areas and they get a bunch of immigrants just dumped there because it's a relatively inexpensive place to live. It's hardly surprising that the anti immigration right is doing better in outer suburbs (although I will say Australia has a very weak right at the moment)
On the topic of boys one of the interesting things about Australia is that we have a relatively small voting gender gap. Even with young men. Here is a poll from the other day for gen z women and men
https://x.com/i/status/1999702728927576235
https://x.com/i/status/1999708358945755559
Women are more likely to vote for the greens but they both end up being massive Labor votes on 2pp (Australia has instant run off preferences so that's what matters)
And I think it's probably compulsory voting. Men are just switching off outside of politically engaged freaks (ie rightoids) in other countries but they get dragged in the voting booth here.
So I think all the programs like the above do is disengage men or entrench them in the rightoid political views they already have.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I don't understand the obsession with Tate. I've seen people on so many different subreddits saying "There's a huge rise in misogyny because of Tate!". I seem him listed specifically as much as I do "manosphere" stuff.
Never mind that it's ridiculous to pin this predominantly on one guy, or that he probably got popular due to the moral panic giving him constant publicity, but his main audience isn't like white British middle school boys. If you ever saw that breach that was shared around months ago, you'd see that it's not exactly a demographic who would have exactly had progressive views of women if not for one grifter.
Though I imagine many know this, even if just subconsciously, and use it as a scapegoat to avoid any sort of responsibility or reflection.
Schoolboys watch Tate videos because of their grievances, and turn to Tate specifically because male teachers have been pushed out of the school system while their parents are shite. They don't have any male role models to teach 'em right.
Hell is there a modern Mr. Rogers out there?
Meanwhile it seems like every day there's a new scandal involving a woman teacher and an underaged student.
https://preview.redd.it/oc0hhdvqo17g1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d97ea4a3ba17ae9e74bd24cb0c251e34f73e65d3
Yeah, I’m sure this sort of stuff is motivated by legitimate economic grievances and the Dem’s refusal to engage in class consciousness. How would the Dems be “welcoming” to these things, except by just dropping that little which manages to distinguish them from Republicans.
my favorite part of reddit is seeing what people will hallucinate me being in favor of. I could make a post saying i support vegetarians and I'd get replies being like "so you like Hitler??"
I’m not remarking on anything that has anything to do with what I think you are or are not in favor of.
I’m saying it’s a joke to talk about this shit as if the source of it all is just economics, or as if these types of dudes have legitimate grievances secretly underlying their stated grievances about not getting sex and women not being subservient, and if we’d just address those true, unstated grievances, they would stop hating girls and women. The sub talks as if the guys in question are all just disillusioned Bernie Bros or something. They are not. They never were any such thing.
If you drill down into any genuine chauvinist of any gender or sexuality, you might find some economic grievance, but mostly you'll find the exact same grievance: they were molested or physically abused as children.
It's such an incredibly common and predictable pathology that it's hard to overstate the institutional negligence and psychological terrorism of this sort of campaign, doubly so in early education. The question is not "will this convince a sexist boy", it's "what effect will this have on a boy who is currently being molested or beaten at home".
Oh give me a fucking break. And is this true of all the genuine racists and homophobes of the world as well? Pedophilia is waaaaay more common than anyone could ever imagine, I guess, it must practically be the norm.
No, some people are just plain fucking hateful. They just have irredeemably shitty personalities. A lot of them enjoy being hateful and get off on it. Most of them, I’m quite sure, are the products of parenting and upbringing, but more likely permissive, lazy, apathetic and ignorant parenting than sexually perverse.
I’ve known people like this. Philandering man-child of a father who never instills any discipline but also loses all interest in the boy when he fails to meet expectations. Insecure, SAHM of a mother, obsessed with her physical appearance, perpetually suspicious and resentful of her cheating husband, seeks to secure the son’s loyalty by granting his every whim (including unlimited gaming and internet access, of course) and treating him like the center of the universe. The doomed marriage ultimately falls apart, the son blames the mother, because she’s now seeking other men out of economic necessity and she was always the pushover anyway, the father is too remote and doesn’t care enough to be hurt by blame. She finally starts trying to impose some sort of rules but it’s far too late and only inspires more hate. The boy is now an overgrown spoiled brat pig bully.
They don’t deserve to be “listened to”, they’re lost causes and belong in fucking gulags.
https://preview.redd.it/s9zw7auwy27g1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ecc7787fa61bfdd2b08bb8bfc877e0dfad29811
For the level of virulent bigotry you brought up, I'm in agreement that it's not a simple consequence of economic grievance. It's a consequence of deep psychological wounding. Of course it doesn't deserve to be "listened to" at face value, because that makes the same mistake as these campaigns of thinking it's a discursive problem and not a pathological one. It's funny that you'd give a clear example of neglect and instability as something to be dismissed as a cause of serious sexual pathology.
And yes, this absolutely applies to racists and homophobes. The most viriulent racists tend to be ex-cons who have seen the worst of the prison system (or, conversely, victims of violent crime) and the worst homophobes also victims of molestation. It's insane to say they're a lost cause when the cause is preventing these abuses in the first place, and an institution that has a direct responsibility to prevent abuse should not be targeting a moralizing campaign against the type of person who is likely suffering from it on the grounds that the consequence of their suffering makes them an undesirable.
“I’m not saying that bad parenting and neglect should be dismissed. I’m dismissing the notion that childhood sexual abuse is the explanation for most cases of misogyny. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s other forms of trauma and bad upbringing. Sometimes it’s just baked into the shitty culture and/or religious indoctrination.
I am all for preventing it in the first place. That is NOT the ‘cause’ being advocated on this sub. The majority on the sub think that these types of men can be compromised with. That if we just listen to, and attend to their grievances that we can all be comrades.
It is not about the fact that they are undesirable. It is about the fact that these dudes deliberately seek to inflict harm on other people. These shitbags go around actively advocating for the sexual harassment, beating and rape and murder of “foids” and withdrawing legal rights from “foids”.
Oh but it’s moralizing to say that societal detritus like this shouldn’t be allowed to wield influence. Yet, somehow, it is not moralizing to make pleas on behalf of the supposed wounded inner child of the violent, hateful bigot.
Prevention should be a priority but, let’s face it, there’s little prevention possible when any and every retard is encouraged to reproduce. There is no licensing for parenting, society is at the mercy of its most dumbfuck breeders and can only try, at best, to clean up after them. Once they’ve already done that much damage there’s little that can be done to fix it. They rarely ever come around and they absolutely never come around from being catered to and coddled.
I specifically said sexual abuse and physical abuse. Sexual abuse is far less rare than it should be, physical abuse is still rampant. If you want to add in negligence and other less dramatic traumas and general mental illness then yes, it's basically guaranteed that this is what underlies a virulent bigot and especially one driven to extreme violence.
If you want to dismiss lesser grievances because of the existence of violent pathological extremists, then at least take the causes and factors of violent pathological extremism seriously and treat them as the real problems they are. I'm happy to take a stand that that is a moral requirement if you want to pretend to care about the victims of such people, who are also necessarily direct victims of these causes.
I know people who were sexually and physically abused as children and yet they are some of the most intelligent, empathetic, well adjusted, high functioning and happy people today. Being a victim does not automatically make one an abuser. There is more to it than that, and being a victim is not a requirement for becoming a violent, abusive, asshole. Excessive privilege and power can be enough to do it. No, I am not entertaining the idea that every single one of these hate filled fuckers are really victims.
Why are you people are even in the Marxist sub If you're gonna analyze everything in the most dumbass capitalistic slop anyway, sure dude it was always about the individual and they need to pull themselves by their moral bootstraps, it's not the dumbass culture war that people like you not only participated in but are still defending to this day, radicalizing an entirety of a generation to the point that one that the number one Gen Z cultural figure is someone who says women shouldn't even vote. Sure it might be all because these guys are not getting laid or whatever but why is not that a legitimate grivence? Releationships are more valuable than any currency in the world and some people are going to bitter about not having them, that's always normal and if society handles these people gracefully and encrouges people to help them everything works out in the end, instead we turned these people into the villain of the culture war because men feeling sad and having mental issues was not in line with the official narrative of the identity politics that men could struggle and have their own separate issues as well. these boys were basically humiliated at every turn for simply trying to talk about their issues, they found out that whatever they do they will have no place in the national conversation so they naturally have turned to people who are trying to destroy the dogma of the liberal world order, weather it's Fuentes, Tate, or anyone else. This is the dynamic that's playing out and if people were smart at the very least they wouldn't repeat it for the next generation but they're not and it's gonna get much much worse.
Oh wow yeah such brilliant material analysis there dude. Go fuck yourself, you don’t know shit about me. Using “culture war bad” to defend people being hideously hateful shit bags isn’t “Marxist”. These sick fucks are not “sad”, they’re just sick fucks. They are not yearning for relationships, they proudly say so themselves. And no, not getting laid is NOT a legitimate fucking grievance, no matter who you are, no matter what sex you are, or your orientation or identity or whatever, LMFAO. Literally no one is entitled to getting laid and no one’s going to die if they don’t get it. And this extremely vile, hardcore misogynist shit goes back way the fuck before woke insanity and the backlash.
I know that you're a dumbass that clearly can't argue and has some bone to pick with these people while your head was so up in your ass that you don't realize that dumbasses like you created this situation in the first place. Again all it would've taken was basically being human and showing grace to these people, who the Fuck are you to tell people something isn't a real problem anyway ? Loneliness is as much as an issue as poverty if not more, these people were lonely, society should've helped them, it didn't , dumbasses like you made the issue worse by being completely obtuse at every step of the way and now we all have to live with it. At least don't be so stupid to double down on it and repeat it for another generation, but I know this is a big ask for completely r-slurreds like you, go protest in some pussy March or no kings protest in some shit I'm sure that's a much more suited intellectual playing field for your intellectual capacity instead of confronting actual problems.
Retard, there is nothing “leftist” or “communist” or “class struggle” or Marxist or Leninist or Maoist about internally ugly AF males not getting pussy. There’s nothing revolutionary about rapists. One need not be a libtard to be disgusted, repulsed by grown men with the intellects of infants and a total lack of empathy, dingus. This is just how all the normal people operate.
“Loneliness is as much of an issue as poverty if not more” LMAO you’re fucking hilarious.
Even if there was the slightest shred of truth to that, your gross friends are not lonely. Maybe you are and so you assume those freaks are too, but no, they are not. Loneliness is not the word for lack of sex. You have to want actual intimacy and affection and connection with someone in order to be lonely. You can’t want that from those who you despise and consider subhuman. Normal human feelings don’t work like that.
Only, this isn't about Dems or Republicans. It's a British article for British policy. We have more parties to choose from, and it's less 50/50 than the US. A lad could easily vote Green, LD, Labour, Reform, Conservatives. There's dynamism there.
It's moreso about respecting girls. As a girl who's been harassed in public by strangers and assaulted as a kid in school by boys who didn't even know my name, this policy can't come sooner.
Most of the people replying to you are not Brits lol. Nor have they grown up with a female British perspective within education.
I cant take greviences from men who feel neglected by either major political pary in the u.s. seriously. They're so massively overrepresented, not just in politics but in every sphere of life, and if one day they woke up in opposite land they'd start blowing shit up.
Here is a question that people from your stance will never answer: if you can picture a version of the democrat party that appealed enough to men, what would it look like?
i know the feds are hooting and hollering seeing a socialist claim the gender that makes up the majority of the laborer class is over-represented in politics
I’ll answer. For one thing, the democrat and republican parties would be dissolved and replaced by a worker’s party. The worker’s party would fight, in elections and through direct action, to provide a broad, robust apparatus of support for workers, those seeking work, those seeking rehabilitation from drugs, and work to ensure the safety, education, and prosperity of all people.
One hypothetical example of a policy goal for this party would be the institution/reinforcement of a general education level for all. This means all students upon graduation would be expected to have an excellent grasp of literacy and mathematics, and have had a broad exposure to various fields of science and the humanities. Students who express an interest or naturally excel in some specific area would have further education provided to them, but for graduates with no precise plan, they would be encouraged to pursue some sort of trade, their education/apprenticeship in which would also be covered.
In the face of criminal activity, persistent drug abuse, sexual abuse, etc, in or about a school, offending students would be identified, prosecuted or punished as appropriate, and be evaluated by a social worker/LCSW who would then create an education plan fashioned to that student’s particular needs. Depending on the severity or level of intervention needed to ensure that student’s success, they would be reintegrated into their original school, sent to attend a continuation school, or have their schooling provided one-on-one(or other small, focused group of some arbitrary size necessary for close oversight) in a secure housing facility.
Much of this is spiritually close to what we have already, with some expansions on existing programs and institution of new programs. The safe, enthusiastic education of the young is fundamental to the prosperity of the individual, their community, and ultimately to their nation and world.
There would of course be circumstances where children of a given sex or ethnicity or other demographic might need their education or educational environment tailored to their needs, and such a scheme as I outlined would first provide that child the opportunity to learn within their broader community, then, if this isn’t possible, they would have an education plan tailored to suit them, and this plan would be realized either at that same school or at a dedicated school for the purpose. There would be no presuppositions of a student’s intelligence or ability to collaborate with others, no student or students of a specified demographic background would be singled out for preference or exclusion. Children should be taught to be curious, considerate, tolerant, and proactive. They should feel empowered to affect the world around them. Teachers and administrators for schools should be cherished, supported, and must always have a means available to resolve any issues preventing them from effectively educating their students or complicating their responsibilities to their work. Students with criminal records and teachers of students who display especially antisocial behavior should have even more benefit and attention provided by a system of support. It should be virtually impossible for any student to ultimately fail to graduate, and it should be easy for graduates to either continue their education, seek a trade, etc.
Neither the dems nor republicans represent the interests of the average person, let alone the average man. Neither party militantly supports the rights the average person has to benefit from their own labor. Neither party fights to protect/restore the environment, without which we will all die. Neither party fights to expand what meager systems of support are available, and in those instances they do, they frequently compromise their position to benefit private “special” interest groups or companies.
I’ll put it this way: many CEOs are men, but almost all men aren’t CEOs. The solution isn’t to supplant male CEOs with female CEOs, but to reevaluate the contribution of our labor such that the title “CEO” no longer implies grotesque wealth or power. The solution isn’t to focus on empowering one demographic or another, as though you’re moving weights around a scale, but to empower everyone who has heretofore been subjected to the whims, the laws, and the punishments of power hungry and avaricious regimes. That is something closer to what I want to see.
Hear fuckin’ hear, well said
Water poured into an overflowing cup
watch this have the exact opposite effect
You mean like what happens when you try to force kids to do literally anything
Which is why i encourage Florida style "horrors of gommunism" curriculum. I think it's going to backfire horribly.
Haven't they done that for decades throughout the country already and they still somehow produce people who are anti-communist by middle age because "freedom" and "making money". Don't get me wrong, I wish it would have the same result as D.A.R.E. but maybe the left is so lame that they make rich geezers' propaganda look cool.
your flair is excellent, where is it from?
I asked for the flair "Member of the Ms. Rachel brigades" but had recently made a comment on New Zealand parliament Maori.
Some jannies are ok
Some of the nannies on here have very good senses of humor.
No no the only way to stop them from being little shits is scolding harder. Trust me it'll work this time.
It's DARE all over again
I love the liberal loop of "Try thing->It Backfires->"Hmm, wow, this issue is getting worse, that means we're not doing it enough!"->Double down->Repeat until something breaks"
[deleted]
I mean Sunday School is what made me an atheist so
"Boys from cultures which do not embody a contemporary western respect for women will be exempt from the curriculum."
You know this is how the UK courts will HAVE to rule, so what's the point?
Jesus the amount of hypocrisy in that sentence. So the boys that embody respect for women need this curriculum and the ones that don’t are exempt.
Hard not to see this as anything other than the far right rhetoric of demoralizing the native male population for political reasons.
Heaven forbid people from certain cultures are ever expected to be held to the same moral standards as the rest of us.
Who are you quoting?
No one, this is just a nonsensical proviso I could imagine the UK gov't/courts issuing, given their track record.
The liberals’ bigotry of low expectations for POC on full display.
That and trying to hedge against another Charlie Hebdo beheading if someone doesn’t like these respect for women lessons.
I identify as a trans-jordaninan
I’m sure this will be applied fairly and with nuance
The UK seems to be on a speed-run to enact every stupid, naive, inane, overbearing, paranoid, self-destructive and authoritarian policy possible, at least when it comes to social issues.
Has corporate mandatory sensitivity trainings made people less racist/ sexist/ etc.? No it has just told them that they have to keep their mouths shut in public and not allow themselves to be even suspected of wrongthink, for example by making a joke, or else they will be punished which only makes them believe it doubly so in private if they are racist/ sexist etc. and it makes previously non-bigoted people become bitter and upset at the totalitarian thought-control they are subjected to which often leads to them adopting chavinistic ideas as some misguided attempt of rebelling against it. The same dynamic will play out on stereoids when applied to boys and young men, by nature a rebellious demographic.
As countless feminist groups and circles, literal whole generations of feminism, have discovered before, banning men or "male oppressors" and only interacting with men who totally agree with all feminist doctrine, either by true faith or by being cowed into it, does not actually extinguish Misogyny or "the partriarchy" because it turns out the underlying cause of these phenomena resides in women, too. It turns out women are just as much "upholding the patriarchy" or doing what is then called "internalized" Misogyny. And by the way most anti-racist groups have found this out as well in regard to racism.
It's fitting that liberals have turned on JK Rowling in recent years because they seem to be dead set on governing like a pack of Doleres Umbridges. In spite of her mostly tepid liberal politics I have to say that Rowling did a fantastic job of identifying a certain type of passive aggresive scold that worms his/her way into positions of authority in liberal institutions just so he/she can excercise petty sadism over others.
Liberals seem to have this weird lack of theory of mind thing where they don't understand that just because people have stopped publicly expressing a certain belief doesn't mean they have stopped holding that belief. One of the benefits of holding the hegemonic ideology is you never have to learn how to politically code switch in order to avoid being punished for having the wrong politics.
bruv
Its not capitalism, its the patriarchy.
Its not capitalism, its immigration
Its not capitalism, its war mongering
Its not capitalism, its corruption
Its not capitalism, its the religious groups
Its not capitalism, its the ethnic groups
Its all so tiring..
This won't work and the government will respond by introducing new criminal codes, which also won't work.
is it surprising
How about a partnership between schools & /pol/
The mischaracterisation that this is just boys being radicalised and they just need to be lectured into being good people is so insane I struggle to believe it's not malicious rather than incompetent. Any genuine state desire to deal with the growing sex divide fueled by social media would be best enacted by enforcing genuine mixing from the earliest age and facilitating and encouraging friendship from nursery onwards. I have consistently been shocked that in our supposedly liberal times so few adults see an issue with half the population largely interacting with the other half in antagonistic forms only. This has actually gotten considerably worse as children spend so little time outside in what was previously often mixed sex neighbourhood friend groups. If your interactions with the opposite sex are so limited in a society, of course friction will naturally take hold and exponentially grow. Literally everything comes from seeing the two groups as "others" despite being in close proximity, and coming to a head when confused children's hormones suddenly demand that proximity and must deal with the confusion and devastation that comes from adolescent relationships... or, increasingly, lack of adolescent relationships.
In the past we could at least rely on things like benevolent sexism to keep society from falling apart. And previously, children were vastly better socialised in general with far more buy in to society and belief that they should follow certain standards. As that has collapsed - ravaged in large part by screen time, and downstream of adult financial woes - we are seeing the fruits of our failure to integrate the sexes become more extreme.
That genuinely is what liberals believe though. In their own heads their beliefs are so self-evidently true that all they have to do in order to spread them is scold people into agreeing with them.
reminds me of vegans
This is all just middle class to very wealthy women judging what the problems are in the world based on what most offends them online, especially those with precious little to offend them in real life and consequentially delusional levels of entitlement and sensitivity.
Yes I'm sure you saw some very nasty, misogynistic Andrew Tate video on the internet. I'm sure you're seeing that stuff way more than you were 15 years ago. But that doesn't mean domestic violence, rape, workplace discrimination or any form of misogyny has increased in proportion to you seeing some stupid videos, or in fact that it has increased at all.
Its that they see something on the internet that makes them mad and want to get it deleted and censored, and for retribution to exacted on those who posted it, but "he made me very angry" is a bit embarassing to present to others and accept for yourself as your actual motivation, and struggles to get traction,so it has to be that its actually causing and reflecting an unbelievably intense growth of real life violence and abuse.
https://www.newsweek.com/millennial-republicans-more-likely-to-identify-as-racist-than-boomers-poll-11150023
millenials are more blatantly racist than their parents because of the Internet. anyway, why would you expect content criticism boys and men to have a negative effect on them that could radicalise them, but not for anti women content to have an effect on women?
That only looks at millennial Republicans. Millennials are much less likely to be Republicans in the first place than their parents.
The same people who insist on associating masculinity is a toxic concept that needs thorough deconstruction with condescending lectures will act aghast that boys and men look up to Andrew Tate and Vladimir Putin.
I knew this was in the UK before I even opened the article.
Afaik the US doesn't have a curriculum, so there was a clue
So they'll teach them to rat on classmates ?
My understanding, unless things have changed, is that, in the UK, sexual assault and domestic violence against men is statistically lumped into the category of violence against women and children.
https://news.sky.com/story/male-survivors-ignored-as-their-abuse-is-classified-as-violence-against-women-13286615
If so, on this basis alone, this entire enterprise is 100% doomed to both fail and cause awful backlash. It's a completely unworkable contradiction.
This plan requires that, in order to deal with women who assault men, boys need to be lectured.
I'm sure these lessons will be taught in a very sensitive manner by the most beloved female teachers
How does preventing violence against women and girls fit into Labours plans for violent brutalizing austerity that will eventually hand over the country to the explicit fascists?
Well you see if we bring in enough religious fundamentalists from the most violently misogynistic countries on earth then it will all balance out somehow
I’d fail this class
Additionally.
"we've already got more surveillance than the Stasi but between immigrants and Andrew Tate we can totally justify going so much further"
Probably shouldn't chime in on this with my current flair huh
Nah bro, jump in. At this point I don't even care anymore, and furthermore I'm becoming more and more convinced that there are people who conspire to do this dumbass type of shit on purpose to keep it all failing. That way grant money for more studies and grants for programs like this keep flowing.
It's hard to stomach thinking that anyone who actually gives a fuck about bettering that stated goals of feminism actually thinks this will work. It's either someone is trying to grift on feminist policy to keep the government money rolling in, or women and their goals really are this stupid (which I don't think)
It's a bunch of narcissists who can never admit they did something wrong or take no for an answer. Every shitty thing in the world honestly stems from this fact.
One of the side effects of constantly bitching about "mansplaining" is subconsciously convincing themselves that being a stupid arrogant asshole is something only men do.
In other words, yes they are that dumb lmao
Of course it will fuel the very same misogyny they hope to fight. Children see the hypocrisy
Young men are going to literally defect from the west at this rate and westoids and nafoids are going to be left holding their dicks in their hands after they escalate their stupid wars, all the while talking about how incredible feminism is. Can it be anymore of a joke than it already is?
No one has any time for this shit at all anymore. The west is going to completely collapse in less than 10 years. With all the degenerate saber rattling and comments like Rutte made on how, "Europe needs to prepare to fight a war like our fathers and grandfathers did.", any young men who still want to have a life are going to find it elsewhere.
Maybe the EU can invest in a program to teach 20 million immigrants that emigrate from all the countries that NATO bombed for 20 years, on how they should respect feminism instead, that will be a huge success I am certain.
There are plenty of countries in the world that aren't interested in mass-extermination wars and whom will gladly and wholly value young men and their wonderful sons.
I already told my wife I'm siding with China when they invade.
I'm surprised there hasn't been, or maybe I haven't seen, a trend similar to the TradCath stuff of Euro men converting to Islam. There's men who complain about feminism to the point they become obsessed with the gender wars, and there's people complaining about Muslim immigrants being sexist against women, that seems like fertile ground for an MRA/incel to Islam pipeline. Supposedly Tate converted to Islam or something for that reason (unless I misunderstood), and he supposedly has a lot of influence with young men and boys. But the trend doesn't seem to exist for some reason.
It absolutely does exist, it’s just swept under the rug in mainstream spaces.
Nafoids will be all outsourced to Ahmedabad by that point. Judging by how many isreali twitter lions turned out to be indians, it cound happens even sooner that I'd expect
I'm pretty sure the problem isn't young men are misogynist, hate women or something, but mostly because they don't have a healthy outlet for them to be who they are without others being overly judgemental, called as incels, etc.
Totally won't backfire at all.
kids aren't stupid. they'll see that this is a silly idea. Problem is they'll probably be too immature to not be reactionary about it
I’m sure the boys won’t react badly to being explicitly taught that under liberalism they’re second class citizens instead of it being merely strongly implied as it is now
oh please do the same with the genders reversed, too
Everyone should read The Second Sexism by David Benatar.
Anyone else read demonic males? Feminists criticized it for the suggestion the men are violent for biology, but thats really begging the question. The book makes a clear case for male violence in humans' closest relatives, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans. The fact that the fifth great ape, the booboo is nonviolent is explored deeply to see how that species seemed to escape the biology of.male violence- and it really offers us as humans some great wisdom.
Boys do need to be to taught that propogandists will seek to use them as tools and weapons by convincing them that women are others- but girls need to learn similar lessons. Women are dehumanized to men as sex objects and srrvants, but men are dehumanized as superman- feelingless, not allowed to be weak, scared, to feel the range of human emotions or have true human conection. Yes, these lessons need to break through into our culture. You are not immune to propaganda. I am not immune to propaganda
I haven't read it completely, but I know one thing: the criticism of it comes not only from "feminists" but also from primatology and other disciplines that study human evolution.
Gorillas actually rarely exhibit aggressive behavior. I mean, they do have infanticide or fighting for dominance, but they don't form SEAL teams to murder their neighbors like chimpanzees or humans do.
Furthermore, the author is selectively choosing species to support his argument, ignoring bonobos—which exhibit violent behavior far less frequently than chimpanzees, where females are dominant, and do not display hostile territoriality.
The key point is that humans and bonobos share just as many genes as humans and chimpanzees, a fact that was unpopular at the time the Demonic Males was published. After that, the author's attitude softened somewhat. He later wrote The Goodness Paradox.
Okay, so in my comment bonobo- autocorrected to booboo, so please go reread. No, the book goes into great depth about the bonobo, so however you got the impression the book ignored it was utterly incorrect
I think this criticism is more like, "Why do you treat them as an exception, since they are just as closely related to humans as chimpanzees are, and yet you insist that the human ancestor must have been chimpanzee-like rather than a mixture of both?" rather than he forgot to write about bonobos.
The author seems to have first arrived at the conclusion that "males are inherently violent," and then sought evidence in the primate world. He found it in chimps, which he then held up as the definitive example. While he did dedicate some space to explaining bonobos, which do not fit this conclusion, then when he effectively excluded them when defining "the essence of human nature."
Humans did not evolve from chimps. Humans, chimps, and bonobos all evolved from a last common ancestor. Therefore, when attempting to reconstruct the behavior of this unknown ancestor, it is necessary to refer to all three sources of information.
I mean, given that both humans and bonobos share concealed ovulation, social sexual behavior, and face-to-face copulation, why can't I selectively choose examples to argue that human ancestors were promiscuous hippies while chimps are the weird deviation?
The truth is closer to this: humans have a dual potential.
one can probably assume that the tribes that didn't nourish violent warriors were often dominated by other tribes that did.
that's where it really gets hairy, imo. humans can definitely be peaceful, but the violent humans always win because we're so fragile. in a second, your skull can be smashed by a stick or rock. even if you survive, you'll likely have permanent brain damage. it's deeply ingrained in us to placate violent people to lessen the damage on ourselves. we've all done it. violence and the threat of violence are still valuable tools, sadly. we let people get away with assault quite a bit.
I don't think these two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. A group of men constantly engaged in internal conflict cannot effectively conquer outsiders (or the brutal forces of nature). This is a fairly mainstream hypothesis about why Homo sapiens outcompeted Neanderthals: because we were more social.
The crucial point is that peace is neither accidental nor a matter of luck, but rather functional. Christopher Boehm (whose framework is highly regarded in hunter-gatherer studies) emphasizes that it was precisely the advent of lethal weapons that liberated us from chimpanzee-style dominance conflicts, because weaker individuals could easily kill abusive alpha males while they slept.
We do have information from existing nomadic hunter-gatherer societies (though one could argue whether they are a perfect representation of our ancestors), and they do have capital punishment, or interpersonal violence for things like infidelity, but overall they are far more egalitarian and cooperative than us, rather than constantly beating each other with sticks.
i agree, but they don't have to constantly be in conflict. violence just has to be the underlying power structure they used to get that "social cohesion" in at least some cases. it isn't that we're constantly clubbing each other with sticks, but the threat itself. we've taken it to an unfathomable level with body armor, riot shields, pepper spray, guns, drones, etc.
i know it's probably not normal, but violence and the threat of violence were a constant in my childhood.
I think you're describing a dominance hierarchy, which has indeed become much stronger than in our ancestors, and is manifested in the form of direct threats of violence.
Existing nomadic hunter-gatherers are characterized by radical egalitarianism; they vigilantly police the group for anyone displaying aggressive or bullying behavior and impose sanctions on those individuals. The weak combine to rule the strong. This is called reverse dominance hierarchy.
However, this structure fails when material conditions change and the weak are unable to successfully counter the strong through collective action. Then, another aspect of our nature begins to manifest itself, leading to the situation you are experiencing.
You're saying all of this when you say yourself you didn't read the book. The author did not make the conclusion you're saying he did. The examples of what humans and banonbos share that would lead them to be less violent go behind the examples you provided. He really leads the reader to ask why aren't humans more like bonobos and could they be?
Fair enough, I think I'll complete it.
This could work, somewhat, if the lessons are exclusively taught by males & if it somehow includes a lesson on misogyny also hurting males. Otherwise, it just won't work.
Most boys, beginning around puberty, exist in a self-reinforcing, self-replicating in-group whirlwind world of petty, low-level misogyny & homophobia. At the lowest level of reaction, this will be something funny they'll talk about in the locker room, at the highest level, this will be a radicalizing event.
This will literally not work if the instructor is anything but a heterosexual male holding a football or an M-16 or something.
What it's actually going to be is the live version of the "Men for Harris" commercial
It still won't work. Look how well Tim Walz did in getting young men to vote for Kamabla.
I will not be engaging with this inner class conflict
the main drive of a patriarchy is fighting against patriarchy
Bitch Dependency is no laughing matter. Addiction to a bitch can fuck with your friends, your health, and, scary enough - even your money. It's a disease.
Fine with this as long as they teach women not to be so stingy with the poonani. Let's call it the Great Compromise.
Notice I said women, I'd suggest a mandatory one semester college course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1lJMtrEoqVw&t=70s
This is obviously an attempt to integrate all of the immigrant children to see women as human people. Every comment here missed the mark. Will it work? No, obviously not, but the mission is thinly disguised integration.
Not at all. Yes, liberals obfuscate and avoid the issue they occasionally point to of more sexist attitudes from largely Muslim immigrant groups. Sure, that's a hush hush element here. But it's absolutely not the case that this is just about that. There is a growing concern that boys - including white British boys - are overwhelmingly sexist and need to be re-educated.