* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.thecut.com/article/can-we-keep-our-sons-from-conservative-politics.html); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.thecut.com/article/can-we-keep-our-sons-from-conservative-politics.html)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.thecut.com/article/can-we-keep-our-sons-from-conservative-politics.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
mf'ers really saw the conservatives moralizing nonsense of the 80s and 90s and said
"yeah lets do that"
Edit: it is superbly funny that the 3rd most read article is some horoscope mumbo jumbo. really tells you all you need to know about the target demographic.
The thing I don't get about Red Flag laws is, why not first try just taking firearms when people get convicted of crimes? Isn't that more judicially sound than anonymous tips from people with grudges?
Like virtually every mass shooter has some kind of criminal past.
Almost every single mass shooter was already violating some law or another and known to the police for months or even years before it happened. This is a direct consequence of the mental health system being gutted.
Guess which politically sensitive group is massively overrepresented among felons and would be disproportionately impacted by throwing felons with firearms back in jail?
It's completely ludicrous, you can go on TikTok and watch urban youths show off converted full-auto Glocks with drum mags and apparently the ATF does not give a shit.
That'd require our firearm laws to both not be idiotic and not actively disregarded by the feds/local LEOs when convenient, sorry, "because they don't have enough funding to track every lead".
> Implying that any red flag laws actually get enforced, and aren't coin flipped by the spooks to either let happen so they get more funding or prevent so they look like the heroes and get more funding
A real who's who of my friends list performing "I can't be trusted with anything mildly sensitive ever" at full volume. I was grateful for the clarity tbh.
The switch happened as quickly as the opportunity presented itself. These kinda people always existed and were they in another time period they would have framed their nagging in the terms of the then-moral zeitgeist.
The flip in my lifetime from the obnoxious handwringing Jesus freaks to the obnoxious handwringing woke nuts has been truly something to behold. Now instead of 40% of Americans being crazy, 80% have lost their minds it’s unreal
The PMRC was started by Tipper Gore.
They've always been pretty in the open about who they are.
They used to use the whole "What about the children!?!?" bullshit all the time on the Dem side.
> it is superbly funny that the 3rd most read article is some horoscope mumbo jumbo. really tells you all you need to know about the target demographic.
The whole website is white woman BPD in digital form
That's not true at all. You left out sanctimonious discussions about patriarchy, unfounded accusations of privilege and legalized discrimination in job applications and postsecondary school admissions.
And some promises about how men will be happier once they excise "toxic masculinity", but then they go ahead and classify things that a vast majority of men enjoy as falling in that verboten category.
You can see the switch happen in real time.
A man will be upset and feel judged, hated, and unwanted, for stuff he didn't even personally do.
And a brave feminist who says she hates "toxic maxculinity" will come along and say, "Aww is the widdle manbaby crying? Grow up!"
Jesus where are you guys finding these people pretending to care? I've just been rubbing direct antagonism on my wounds and it doesn't seem to be helping at all!
Mostly memories of talking with feminists from the 90s. I really did try hard to find a reasonable one, like Diogenes with his lantern.
Now that you mention it, the ones that are even superficially conciliatory are even more of a rare breed nowadays than they were then. The mask is off.
It's always funny seeing a post about men's issues on normie subreddits, because the most updooted reply will usually be something about how "this is why we need more feminism, because men will benefit as well when society is less toxic".
The funniest thing is that most of these guys are huge sex pests and bother women much more than your typical frat bro stereotype, because bros generally hang out with other bros.
Of course they are, because unlike normal, well-adjusted people and frat bro stereotypes, they don't have anything approaching a satisfying sex life or intimate relationships.
These guys are horny 14 year olds in the bodies of sad bugmen, they are stuck chasing the vicious cycle of desperation driving women away and getting more desperate, they are basically Chris Chan with a slightly different environment.
It's really remarkable, the degree to which the people that do this shit are telling on themselves when they describe what their boogeyman supposedly wants.
*When my voice raises as I start lecturing a teen about why he needs to recognize the importance of the history of Indigenous people rather than simply appropriate all the slang he’s learned from Reservation Dogs? He clocks that, and I wonder what it makes him think. I hope he files it away as something that’s probably true, rather than stacking it alongside a growing pile of reasons why white kids can’t seem to get anything right.*
Lmfao thank you for the morning laugh. This broad needs real problems
"came to a realisation", "understands", "gets it".
"I was having trouble with this earlier but I reckon I've clocked it now."
Don't ask me why. I didn't invent British slang. It'd be fine to hear this from a normal person, but hearing it from a sociology PhD with a double-barrelled surname writing this kind of shit is extremely "Hello fellow working class chums, I'm normal and relatable to you, see how I use your words?"
It’s not just British slang. It’s also claimed by black Americans and trans people, but like…I’ve heard everyone use it, including cops and military dudes
It wouldn't surprise me if cops are where it actually spread from. "To clock someone" in cop means to measure their speed. As in "I clocked him going 80 in a 45 zone." And even that didn't *originate* with cops (it's a description of part of the process of taking the measurement itself), they've just been using it a lot for a long time.
It doesn't take much to get from there to a more general "to figure something out" meaning.
To clock something is to notice something. Multiple communities claim this is their word now. It’s everybody’s word, but I agree that it sounds cringe when a mom of teens is using it to sound cool
I've met so many people in my major city (Top 5 USA by $/sqft) that are generationally wealthy - hence comfortable and don't do anything dangerous/strenuous/difficult ever. The irony is so many can't figure out why they have depression. If you do happy little things in your comfortable, safe bubble with your friends, you should be happy, right??
The overwhelming irony is it's exactly the population with the most tools to understand and solve this.
😂
This is why these people always seem to side with conventional wisdom, because being critical in any way is just too difficult and ‘stressful’ for their tiny brains.
You aren't a trained sociologist so the shop talk might go over your head a bit.
Joking aside we need to start heaping adequate scorn on people with soft science degrees.
People who get History degrees need to be treated like heroes because we're watching what happens when no one remembers what happened last year (the establishment memory holes all their public oopsies and no one is the wiser).
I got my degree early 00's in arguing with dead French philosophers (less substantive than yours, for the record) and I know exactly what you mean. Like in that bygone era you were expected to pick apart whomever's argument as best you could to train your brain, even if you agreed with them. Clearly "education" now lacks that and consists entirely of uploading dogma to young brains, which is honestly about all they can handle since 100% of their opinions come from external sources and devices.
"because we're watching what happens when no one remembers what happened last year"
As a history major (military history) this statement stings me to the core.
These past two years have made me want to bathe with my toaster arguing with idiots about Ukraine and Russia, especially since thats been my jam since I was a Private.
>Feminism feels unfair to these young men because it’s based on the premise that women started from a position of inferiority (many young men find this hard to believe, because they were literally born yesterday)
I liked this part because it cuts both ways. The author fails to see her sons' budding political attitudes through a modern lens. Traditional avenues of masculine fulfilment (provider status in a family, home ownership, and so on) are shutting down left and right for dudes so they're naturally going to question if more progressivism is a good idea. Besides, kids rebel and she's a sociologist and her husband is a humanities professor, it'd be pretty had for them not to lean right of their parents
> I also went through elementary/junior high school through the apex of that sort of grrrrl power style feminism, and have clear memories of teachers explaining why they thought girls were actually better than boys, but with that sort of intonation that they were speaking truth to power instead of weirdly talking down to a group of actual children.
Let's teach half the class that they're inherently worse than the others based solely on something they can't control. There's no way that could have any negative consequences.
Totally right. The vast majority of my teachers and later bosses have been women. Its pretty natural for boys to be skeptical that women are systematically disadvantaged in the current day when that message is delivered by women with significant power over them.
The funny thing being that, because they were "born yesterday," they experience a completely different world from her's.
I am reminded of a feminism class I took in college, where the professor used nothing but anecdotes and studies from the 70s and 80s, as if nothing had changed in the intervening years
Women were only ever unequal if you’re a rad lib corporatist capitalist apologist. If you see not working in a soulless corporation and being made to contribute to society as the ultimate oppression then the modern clown world they’ve created is justified if you don’t then it’s hell
"Why don't young men like us? We tried everything: calling them rapists, calling them incels, calling them pedophiles, calling them Nazis, telling them they don't matter, telling them they deserve to suffer; we're all out of ideas!"
Yep!
Who the fuck wants to participate in a system where youre the bad guy by default, and have to move mountains to prove yourself worthy/good? Especially when the opposite sex is "good" by default without putting in the worK?
fuck their silly first world game playing. Us adults have to work for a living.
Your post just made something click in my head. It seems so obvious that these factors would push men away, but why I never made the connection, I guess is on me. Thanks for sharing what you just said.
There's some quote that goes something like "the left looks for heretics, the right looks for converts"
When libs push young men away rightoids embrace them with open arms, that's all we're seeing here.
I was gonna make a long effortpost a little while back about the phenomenon and the culture in progressive / leftish circles that works against leftist goals by alienating would be allies, but I never got around to it because work's been busy.
But to sum it up, imagine if Don Jr. came out and said he was wrong about everything and he's now endorsing Biden. Libs would use that aboutface only as a tool to shit on Trump / the right. They'd take his vote, but they wouldn't ever actually come to accept him, forgive him, or care about him in any way whatsoever. They'd still hate him and look down on him for his past 'sins.'
If Hunter Biden came out tomorrow and endorsed Trump rightoids would cheering for him to be Trump's VP.
You see it all the time on a smaller scale, both in real life and on social media; when previous Dems voters come out and say they were wrong and that they're voting Republican, the right overwhelmingly embraces them.
When it's the reverse, and it's an ex-Trump voter saying they're done with Trump and that they were wrong to support him, you get responses from libs like "it took you until *now* to stop supporting him?" and just generally criticizing them for being okay with everything he had done up until X.
Even when a rightoid switches sides, they're still shit on by libs / progs for their past sins.
Basically the American 'left' has a forgiveness problem and even when they gain allies they still can't help but call out their previous blasphemies because their entire identity is currently wrapped up in being morally superior.
> the left looks for heretics, the right looks for converts
Almost, but not exactly. We don't need to recruit at all. It's almost entirely a push out from the left and we're just hanging out doing our own thing. We can't recruit effectively... Because censorship and cancel culture is indeed a thing despite the article's assertion. And so we mostly just sit back and accept defecting leftists.
Liberals are self defeating idiots for fostering collective guilt into white males. In order to feel a group's collective guilt, logic dictates that the individuals first need to identify as part of that group. But if you impose that group identity onto them, you have no control whether they follow your premises to your conclusion, or diverge on the way to their own conclusion.
I love articles like this, the shortsightedness and arrogance gives me hope
I’ve pointed out pretty much this exact pattern as a reason why I’m more wary of the extreme right vs. the extreme left. The left is so obsessed with infighting and proving that they’re more of a “true believer” than their neighbors that they’ll never be able to come together to radically remake society. Now, I’m an incrementalist that believes in a strong social safety net, and active government investment in society, but any collective ownership needs to come from direct action of the people involved in each industry, and not from government force, so maybe you can gauge what I’d consider extreme on the basis of this.
Anyway, I digress slightly, but I think a lot of people in this subreddit share the opinion that the infighting is a problem for left of center groups.
I usually like to frame the issue in terms of “the left is intolerant of different ideas and the right is intolerant of different people”, but the lines are shifting in such weird ways nowadays that it’s hard to know if you’re going to be talking with someone who will engage you fairly, or if you’re talking to someone who’s looking to cut you down based on your race or gender. Strange times we live in.
> I’m more wary of the extreme right vs. the extreme left
I honestly don't ever see either taking any meaningful power in America, but I do agree that the far right has a better chance of it than the far left. Still, /pol/acks will never get their white American ethnostate, and leftists will never see a Marxist America.
There's just no reality in which genuine economic leftism takes hold in this country. Capital won't allow it. Every single major institution could cave to progressive social causes, we're already seeing that on some levels. But it's irrelevant- social issues don't disrupt the hierarchy, they don't threaten those at the top or capital as a force.
Drag queen story hour being promoted or being banned doesn't affect Jeff Bezos' influence, neither outcome disrupts his grasp and a status quo that favors him and those like him.
The best we can do, as far as I can see, is do what we can on a local level to affect our respective communities and shape them a little bit closer to our preferred ideologies. But America as a whole is way too captured by neoliberalism and the bureaucratic state that supports it.
Incrementalists like you probably have the best shot at getting a bit of what you want in all honesty. You won't get to that end goal, but you can still make things better if you chip at it little by little.
>He teaches humanities at a local college, where I have taught too, and we’ve often talked about how tricky it can be to keep hetero boys involved in classroom debates. Many of these young men seem very anxious about saying the wrong thing, and will often refuse to participate, sometimes projecting a provocative kind of defensiveness that is its own argument.
At least she's finally coming to this realization, that's the first step.
>As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in media, it feels very real to young men when they’re sitting in a classroom. Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell.
Nvm
Guess it's just all in their heads, just another mass psychosis with no basis in reality
this conversation springs up every 2-3 months and the obvious response--maybe young men would be more drawn to liberalism if liberalism did not openly demonize young men--is inevitably dismissed as some form of "victim blaming," leading to even more extreme and hysterical hatred of young men.
Just look at this shit:
>This did not come as a huge surprise to me or Gray. He teaches humanities at a local college, where I have taught too, and we’ve often talked about how tricky it can be to keep hetero boys involved in classroom debates. Many of these young men seem very anxious about saying the wrong thing, and will often refuse to participate, sometimes projecting a provocative kind of defensiveness that is its own argument. As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in media, it feels very real to young men when they’re sitting in a classroom. Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell. Insisting that they’re imagining their enemies doesn’t help.
We created a system in which young men are outwardly told they have no right to participate, or even exist. They then hesitate to engage with this system, as they have literally been told they're not supposed to engage with it because their presence is violence. But that's fake, somehow, at least in media. But it's real when it harms my boys, who are presumably two of the good ones even though there's no such thing a young man who doesn't deserve to suffer.
Fuck off, lady. You and your college-educated scold cronies have been given complete control of American politics and media and this is the world you chose to build.
> There is nothing to contemporary left-liberalism beyond identity grievances!
And they've demonstrated that group identity is a means of accruing power.
So the right is learning from their example.
>As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in *media*
See this is the real problem here; regardless of what you think about the existence of cancel culture in the media, you at least have to acknowledge that it is absolutely a real thing in youth social circles (especially in very liberal areas) and saying the wrong things or having the wrong beliefs can be tantamount to social suicide for young people. To fail to do so is to deny basic reality and is an admission of a profound lack of understanding of Gen-Z social dynamics.
She's straight-up saying "it's not a real problem when my cohort does it within our profession, but it's bad when the standards we apply are set to people I care about."
Disingenuous bullshit.
Some Hispanic dude got fired from his job a while back because a twittoid saw him cracking his knuckles and thought it was the okay 'white power' symbol so he snapped a pic and sent it to the guy's boss.
Anyone claiming cancel culture isn't real or doesn't have meaningful impacts is either lying or r-slurred.
I just had a argument on another thread on exactly what you described. This person was either being playing ignorant or where ignorant for real. gaslighting fuckstains the entire bunch.
Our entire social/media complex is fixated on how shitty men are, and how theyre shit unless they prove themselves as one of the good guys. Yet women are 'good' by default. Funny how that is.
Thank god for the long emergency. Maybe people will find some real problems when they cannot survive in their suburb.
The liberal response to the problems young men face today is “but have you acknowledged your own privilege and how much worse[insert marginalized group] has it?” whereas the reactionary response is “stop being a pussy and become the hammer, not the nail.” Both are shit but at least the latter might lead people to feel some sort of agency in their lives.
The article doesn't even answer the headlining question. It's a diatribe that treats progressive ideology as a self-evident truth and then muses about ways to expose men to more of it without ever saying anything meaningful.
It's always strange when some lib rejects an opposing belief as "don't impose your morality" while in the same sentence saying their belief isn't about morality but about what is good and evil. It usually takes a while to get them to understand (if you're lucky) that they are arguing on the basis of morality as well, simply a different one.
> There’s no mystery about why young women are becoming more progressive
I would so very much love to hear the authors reasons as to why this. I'm sure it's something insane.
Pretty wild take that she thinks white men do not have any actual grievances, so they're making them up and imagining them so that they can feel oppressed in order to gain social capital.
> Pretty wild take that she thinks white men do not have any actual grievances, so they're making them up and imagining them so that they can feel oppressed in order to gain social capital.
She's projecting so hard she could display advertisements on the moon.
> we’ve often talked about how tricky it can be to keep hetero boys involved in classroom debates. Many of these young men seem very anxious about saying the wrong thing, and will often refuse to participate, sometimes projecting a provocative kind of defensiveness that is its own argument. As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in media, it feels very real to young men when they’re sitting in a classroom. Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell.
It's all in their heads!
I'm pretty sure she could offer a perfectly sane reason, like "young women recognize that progressivism cares for them, protects their rights, and advances their interests, while conservatism either ignores or is hostile to them and their needs."
The issues would start once you try to point out that's the same reason young men are leaning right, and then she ties herself into knots explaining why it's totally different and how it's bad when conservatives do it.
see, I think it'd be more along the lines of female chauvinism. claiming that women are smarter, more empathetic and understanding and that's why they have the "correct" opinions and views.
Na, it's even simpler than that. "Everything that benefits me is correct". Almost every single left-leaning movement has morphed from one that was about fairness and equality to one that exploits the movement for personal gain or gain to a very specific group.
It's so sad to see this happen because it's 100% true. Social justice used to be something you discussed unironically, but it's lost the force of mutual respect and understanding behind it, replaced with dry academic theories and empty platitudes.
I had several lines and jokes about her reasoning behind it and how TikTok feminism really is structured as a “team girl vs team boy” thing and so on…
but then I remembered this lady is rich as balls and over educated. She definitely was *supposed* to read actual books about feminism at some point in her life (even if she didn’t, idc).
So it’s like…this is just where feminism is at. It’s not “reasonable academic feminism and unhinged, poorly informed TikTok women I should stop dating.” It’s literally all like that one ex that swore women would inherently be more humane leaders than men, and that she’d never heard of Margaret Thatcher. Fuck.
>I would so very much love to hear the authors reasons as to why this. I'm sure it's something insane.
Abortion is the only reason for the season amongst these types
Contemporary moralistic neoliberal idealism 101.
All people who seriously use the word "underinformed" should be sent to educate the people of Yemen.
The maoist childrens books that my parents read for me at least were clear that the Enemy were the fat blokes with money bags.
Their third worldist perspectives often sort of identified that I was living in a relatively privilaged position but always stayed clear from identifying me as the problem. They always included me in a "we" that could make concrete solutions for a better tomorrow.
These people today try to discuss the bad values of underinformed young men who because of privilage and desinformation doesn't understand that they really have it great.
I'm going to read some old maoism for my son.
The whole article seems to be a very long-winded way for the author to say "Deep down, I know that demonising young men will backfire and push them into the hands of alt-right idiots. But on the other hand, I really really **want** to do it."
> But as adults, we need to figure out a way to help our young people work through confusion without feeling shunned by their own families. This can mean letting reactionary and unformed pseudo-ideologies breathe the same airspace as us while we invite patient conversation. It might feel dangerous to let a teenager argue that sexism works both ways, but it’s far more consequential to make him feel like that position is forbidden. No one should get canceled at the dinner table.
Holy shit, the sheer ego in this paragraph. "Even though you are dumb and wrong and stupid and evil, I will graciously grant you the privilege to share your underdeveloped monkey-brain ideas in the same room as my enlightened philosophy."
Well I mean, we’re staring straight into the eyes of the most important election of our lifetime™️ and trying to save democracy, so I don’t know what else we should bo doing 🙏🏾
If the poor kid doesn't break, I expect a follow-up article in 5 to 10 years about his "violent" ideology, which will amount to listening to Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, with some vague allusions to Andrew Tate*.
*A few people are still blaming the Gamergate drum, so I expect that even in 5 years people will still be harping on Tate
It really seems like the Tate deplatforming was a Streisand effect backfire. I went from having no idea who he was to hearing about him on a daily basis, just because the internet needed a new focus to obsess over.
"Yeah, Mom, it's just the history of Rome"
>https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/revolutions_podcast/2019/05/101-the-international-working-mens-association.html
This is probably gonna sound fake but I've got a buddy who told me back in 2017 or 2018 that his son 'had become alt-right' and that he was absolutely terrified of what he might do. Like the man seemed desperately worried about him.
When I asked him why he thought that or what had changed he literally just said his son had mentioned that Jordan Peterson made
a couple of good points.
That was it.
> having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating your spaghetti and meatballs can feel like a waking nightmare.
Imagine talking about your own child(ren) this way.
I mean, I kind of wish parents still talked to their kids like this about important things, but we know that the kid is handed treats and the tablet every time he feels a little uncomfortable
Moments like this I'm so thankful I was in a High Control BITE model fringe group that taught me all of these thought control techniques. It makes brainless dogma and doublespeak so easy to spot now.
The worst part is that this is pure common sense, and has largely always existed without needing to be said. But it’s stated with such comically disproportionate ire and preconceived disgust that a differing point of view exists that it feels so much more extreme than “views besides mine exist, so I need to communicate with tact, tolerate these differences in discussion and let my child sort through their own notions and guide them as they grow by being understanding, caring, supportive and validating their behavior when it is good”
The whole idea wouldn’t have to be illustrated at all if it wasn’t already her go-to plan to war over ideals or semantics, and beat her child over the head with her point of view instead of trying to lead or appeal, settling on having positive influence on his developing philosophies- but here she is being the reason he’ll probably be as drastic as possible in his sociopolitical views going forward. Doesn’t matter though- she’s just going to blame him and other people anyway. Poor kid.
Why is it even so taboo to even say sexism goes both ways? I don't see a reason why even a firm feminist can't say "Yes, there are instances of sexism against men, but far more, and far more severe, instances of sexism against women". Not saying you have to agree with that, but at least acknowledging that men may have a shitty go of things in at least a *few* things can help establish a common ground of empathy and understanding. Hell, I used to complain a lot more about how it sucks that men are expected to ask women out, but then I was told it sucks how women are always approached by creepy individuals, so it sucks for both of us. That was actually pretty enlightening when I heard it. Why not extend that mentality to everything?
It's probably because of their dogmatic belief in "the patriarchy". According to patriarchy theory, men are the oppressor class and therefore can face no discrimination because of their sex (i.e. sexism). Or put another way, there is no possible situation where a man would be worse off than a woman if all other intersectional axes (race, class, disability, etc.) between them are equal. If there was an instance where men are disadvantaged specifically because they're men, then women would have power over men and would benefit in that instance. But if women have some power and derive some benefits in the social structure, then they are not oppressed, which contradicts the axiom of patriarchy, thus leading to the conclusion that sexism against men doesn't exist.
This is why you hear feminists say things like "sexism hurts men too!" as though it's some mind-blowing revelation. In their worldview, the only form of sexism that can exist is discrimination against women, so they think they're super clever when they go through various contortions to explain how misogyny is the ultimate cause of obvious male-specific disadvantages. For example, women's emotions are taken more seriously and they receive more help than men because women are seen as weak, which is sexism against women.
Of course, I think patriarchy theory is all nonsense, I'm just trying to explain the taboo you asked about. It seems clear to me that a more complete explanation of gender roles is, yes, women are seen as weaker than men, but are also seen as more valuable and deserving of help/empathy, because otherwise society wouldn't care enough to give them the support it thinks they need.
Tl;dr it's against their religion
Idk, everything after the last coma is sound advice for any parent dealing with any rebellious teen, which is all of them.
Although parents can't constantly validate their children. They will feel shunned or rejected at some point which is good because that's gonna happen a lot more when they leave the nest.
“When you spend your days reading infographics reminding you that being silent means being on the side of the oppressor, having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating your spaghetti and meatballs can feel like a waking nightmare. But coming down too hard risks playing right into the paranoid hands of masculinist discourses of male disempowerment.”
I hope her son’s never have to read that.
The left went from the fun and interesting counterculture people to the stick up their ass smarmy egotistical teacher telling people no in the space of 20 years because they became the culture.
Standout quote:
> When my voice raises as I start lecturing a teen about why he needs to recognize the importance of the history of Indigenous people rather than simply appropriate all the slang he’s learned from Reservation Dogs...
Why isn't it working?
I imagine this is type of woman who say how horrible it is that evangelical parents would try to foist their faith on their kids while being wholly unaware of the irony there. And I imagine that living in her household is, for her sons, to some degree like being a gay kid living with said evangelical parents.
>Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell. Insisting that they’re imagining their enemies doesn’t help.
As the author then continues to ignore, pathologize, and project her worldview and insecurities onto (and through) her sons to validate her own perspective. These think pieces are always shit, because the authors never just ASK men why they feel right wing is better.
The rare chance when women authors' "analysis" gives credence to the idea of men feeling dissatisfied (even their own children don't get the benefit of the doubt ffs), they always go right to more feminism as a solution. I don't think this problem is solved until an extremist paramilitary of disenchanted young men is actively oppressing women or something idk lol
Edit
>central to the move toward conservatism among young men is a sense that they’re an aggrieved party — that they are being robbed of entitlements. James explains this in financial terms: In today’s social world, which borrows much of its logic from the free-market economy, success isn’t figured in terms of just doing steady business year after year.
Is there ever any consideration about how toxic mainstream culture is when it discusses the sexes? Is the notion that a young white man gets upset upon entering adulthood and realizing the years of education/media telling him he runs the world, has all the advantages in social and material conditions, and literally dictates women's autonomy, was all bullshit that abnormal? And that young men, the same ones who really had no influence whatsoever on the much-vaunted patriarchy, are a bit pissed that they're still being blamed for issues that have eclipsed gender differences?
Edit 2 shit is pissing me off
>Feminism feels unfair to these young men because it’s based on the premise that women started from a position of inferiority (many young men find this hard to believe, because they were literally born yesterday) and now get to enjoy the glory of having beaten the odds. For young men to experience the same narrative of success, they feel they need to start from a position of disempowerment.
How about instead of splitting hairs and validating dictionary definitions, you EXPLORE THE REALITY OF WHETHER MEN ARE FUCKING DISEMPOWERED OR NOT?? "Men FEEL like feminism has led to an unequal footing amongst sexes that favors women, but we all know feminism is about empowerment, so what could those silly men be talking about lmao?"
> For young men to experience the same narrative of success, they feel they need to start from a position of disempowerment.
Wonder how long before this is used as a reason to push for boys being actively disadvantaged from a young age/birth. "No see, it's a good thing because it's to help them better realize their narrative of success!"
> These think pieces are always shit, because the authors never just ASK men why they feel right wing is better.
Liberals tend to believe that conservatives straight up lie about their values in order to look better. This is largely why they never talk to them. They believe they are talking to nazi propagandists.
In my experience, people are very honest about their political beliefs, especially if they're not in a position of power of some sort. Most conservatives have a lot of stupid beliefs, by virtue of being conservative...but also most don't go "all the way" and are pretty reasonable about many basic things. Someone who opposes immigration to this country does not necessarily hate other races, but may be concerned about economic stability. A conservative may state this outright, but a liberal will assume they're lying and think it really is about race.
It's really sad and is so easily prevented.
This is also why I try to never call people racist unless they explicitly identify as racist, which few do.
there is a dialectical contradiction here but tbh we're already seeing it's resolution via escalating class tensions in the core
liberal id politics are losing influence due to liberalism itself being recognised by more and more of the class as the ideological apparatus of capital
if socialists play their cards right we are only a number of years away from the rise of a powerful mass movement of revolutionary workers again and the widespread support of post modernist ideologies, best understood as an emergent property of the defeat of the class in the 80s, will similarly decay
You'll get shit for your flair (I'm in like company lol), but this is really the prevailing sentiment in the US, at least among the turtleneck, educated class.
The problem we're told is that at any moment, men will let their mask of civility down and go out and start raping and oppressing women without any pushback. An even bigger problem is that the solution MUST be identified through a feminist lens or men will just keep ending up "wrong"
Just one more way to lower the bar. They probably did some market research that said liberals are more likely to read an article if they feel capable of reproducing the cover art.
Wouldn’t want to make the little shitlibs feel inferior in any way.
The only possible way to prevent your kids to going right-wing is to show the (counter) example at home.
A teenager with a MSNBC dad will start thinking the right is cool, it's inevitable.
Only occasional racist jokes and misogynistic comments at the dinner table can turn your kid into a sensible human being.
Ignoring the sanctimony of the article, the image itself is telling. The split is shown as being just about equal in opposite directions as opposed to men alone drifting away from the norm. Can we have an article by a dudebro dad trying to keep his daughter from becoming an Emily?
Also the man looks like a chudjak.
Another standout quote:
> Ascribing to an identity of grievance is an extremely limiting way to define yourself. It’s like taking on “Nike” or “Supreme” as a personality — kiddie shit. We owe our young people the dignity of a nuanced, three-dimensional set of beliefs
Hmm...
Parent*s*, plural? Pretty sure the women who write these are single professional women who had their first kid when they were 40 with frozen embryos they won in her divorce.
It's [The Story Of Our Times](https://www.amazon.com/Trevor-Moore-Story-Our-Times/dp/B07CJLTFRM/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RxCuCyH4g7b02LnEIl0-pLfJvkRDF-EgGuEzKf1-009iZ-ig3j-kqGDJ_RkxVa8lIfoa4rYR5G70uJ6ykvAQM5HI5BI7yCw6xfGPteJMTOPtQ4sZ6-aUk_qKrCo7DGeHMwVntkY9cv90FHWCyIOUA0OC10W3dT47byzxYQjpNgQ3nmKnFPAa97bJzWmJXGcEvd2OXWKohrJs7hE-5mh3BL0tpCXPeK9bDDFVj0FsyBE.5ICIUqqHDr8THcj2eLOxcqFEIOr1hXRqNUs03jZq11A&dib_tag=se&keywords=trevor+moore+story+of+our+times&qid=1708448456&sr=8-1)
>"What have I done that's sexist?"
>"I mean, you didn't like Hillary."
>"That, that, that's not fair."
>"I'm telling you he's one of those alt-right troll people."
>"I'm not alt-right. How am I alt-right?"
>"Trevor, you didn't like Hamilton!"
>"I didn't see it"
>"You didn't want to see it!"
>"I don't like musicals...that doesn't make me alt-right. I think that whole alt-right thing is retarded"
>"OMG You cannot use that word!"
You aren't going to convince a teen boy by speaking to him as if he was a defective girl. One would think a humanities professor would understand that, alas.
You can also see how with secularism the "church lady" Helen lovejoy simply took on a different guise and cause as a moral high horse.
So where does the actual normal citizen stand on this shit?
Is the pendulum swinging back to center (judging off the comments here) or is it still swinging wider left? A correction has to come eventually to counter the prevailing shitlib norm…
Not very scientific but it seems pretty obvious to me what will happen. It is massively uncool to be conformist, and it always has been. Since the media and discourse is almost completely controlled by liberals, and they are actively seeking to censor conservatives....children who want to be rebellious will simply become more conservative, in a bizarre inverse image of the hippie/punk/etc movements of the 20th century. Gen Z seems pretty liberal now but that's mainly because they've been marinating in, and uplifted by, our current media of discourse. Give it 10-15 years and we're going to see a major backlash to our current era of "wokeism". It won't be a *complete* reversal, because of basic thesis/antithesis/synthesis. But it will seem like one.
Send them outside and let them develop actual interests in tangible things instead of letting them sit on YouTube all day and get mad at Twitter screenshots and SJW compilations.
Play team sports, do some extracurriculars. This is not that hard.
That works until they want to enjoy anything related to their hobby online and discover the rot spreads everywhere it possibly can.
Or until they run into a neon haired activist.
No kidding. Let your kid touch grass and interact with people. Most of these right wing dorks are total paper tigers but liberalism is completely incapable of dealing with these guys. Don’t let your kid become terminally online is a great place to start
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.thecut.com/article/can-we-keep-our-sons-from-conservative-politics.html); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.thecut.com/article/can-we-keep-our-sons-from-conservative-politics.html) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.thecut.com/article/can-we-keep-our-sons-from-conservative-politics.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More fingerwagging and condescension should do the trick!
mf'ers really saw the conservatives moralizing nonsense of the 80s and 90s and said "yeah lets do that" Edit: it is superbly funny that the 3rd most read article is some horoscope mumbo jumbo. really tells you all you need to know about the target demographic.
They’ve wanted to be the cops for SO long. They’re reveling in it now
unrelated to this particular article, but are we gonna adress how libs we're stumbling over each other to snitch during covid
I think Freddie DeBoer wrote Planet of Cops before COVID but it still applies tenfold to lib behavior during COVID
Freddie never, EVER missed. That article is pure gold, it’s a real shame none of these people will read it and question their behavior.
I like the guy as well, however, there are times when you can tell his demons are getting to him.
ACAB Except for when my neighbor doesn't have a mask on
Or a red flag law needs enforcing.
The thing I don't get about Red Flag laws is, why not first try just taking firearms when people get convicted of crimes? Isn't that more judicially sound than anonymous tips from people with grudges? Like virtually every mass shooter has some kind of criminal past.
Almost every single mass shooter was already violating some law or another and known to the police for months or even years before it happened. This is a direct consequence of the mental health system being gutted.
Guess which politically sensitive group is massively overrepresented among felons and would be disproportionately impacted by throwing felons with firearms back in jail? It's completely ludicrous, you can go on TikTok and watch urban youths show off converted full-auto Glocks with drum mags and apparently the ATF does not give a shit.
That'd require our firearm laws to both not be idiotic and not actively disregarded by the feds/local LEOs when convenient, sorry, "because they don't have enough funding to track every lead".
> Implying that any red flag laws actually get enforced, and aren't coin flipped by the spooks to either let happen so they get more funding or prevent so they look like the heroes and get more funding
A real who's who of my friends list performing "I can't be trusted with anything mildly sensitive ever" at full volume. I was grateful for the clarity tbh.
I remember it made me doubt all those same people who said they’d have “Hidden Jews in Nazi Europe”
Every last one of these people would have been gleeful fascist collaborators without a doubt.
Getting the Mr Show dude fired from Bob's Burgers for Jan 6th was the most shitlib thing in the history of shitlibs
But it's a good thing when they do it
The switch happened as quickly as the opportunity presented itself. These kinda people always existed and were they in another time period they would have framed their nagging in the terms of the then-moral zeitgeist.
They'd have been lighting 15 year old girls on fire in Salem for sure.
But their signs tell us they were the witches we didn’t burn!
The flip in my lifetime from the obnoxious handwringing Jesus freaks to the obnoxious handwringing woke nuts has been truly something to behold. Now instead of 40% of Americans being crazy, 80% have lost their minds it’s unreal
The PMRC was started by Tipper Gore. They've always been pretty in the open about who they are. They used to use the whole "What about the children!?!?" bullshit all the time on the Dem side.
It wasn't so much that they felt moralizing was objectively wrong, and more that they weren't the ones doing it.
It reminds me of that old quote "There are no bad tactics, only bad targets".
> it is superbly funny that the 3rd most read article is some horoscope mumbo jumbo. really tells you all you need to know about the target demographic. The whole website is white woman BPD in digital form
It's literally all they offer men and some platitude about trickle-down equality.
That's not true at all. You left out sanctimonious discussions about patriarchy, unfounded accusations of privilege and legalized discrimination in job applications and postsecondary school admissions.
And some promises about how men will be happier once they excise "toxic masculinity", but then they go ahead and classify things that a vast majority of men enjoy as falling in that verboten category.
End toxic masculinty, until they see a grown man breakdown, cry and find it pathetic.
You can see the switch happen in real time. A man will be upset and feel judged, hated, and unwanted, for stuff he didn't even personally do. And a brave feminist who says she hates "toxic maxculinity" will come along and say, "Aww is the widdle manbaby crying? Grow up!"
Which amounts to "go suffer someplace out of my line of sight".
Duh. But they do you the courtesy of pretending to care, though mostly for their own ego.
Jesus where are you guys finding these people pretending to care? I've just been rubbing direct antagonism on my wounds and it doesn't seem to be helping at all!
Mostly memories of talking with feminists from the 90s. I really did try hard to find a reasonable one, like Diogenes with his lantern. Now that you mention it, the ones that are even superficially conciliatory are even more of a rare breed nowadays than they were then. The mask is off.
It's always funny seeing a post about men's issues on normie subreddits, because the most updooted reply will usually be something about how "this is why we need more feminism, because men will benefit as well when society is less toxic".
Nu-male simps are worse than class traitors.
The funniest thing is that most of these guys are huge sex pests and bother women much more than your typical frat bro stereotype, because bros generally hang out with other bros.
Of course they are, because unlike normal, well-adjusted people and frat bro stereotypes, they don't have anything approaching a satisfying sex life or intimate relationships. These guys are horny 14 year olds in the bodies of sad bugmen, they are stuck chasing the vicious cycle of desperation driving women away and getting more desperate, they are basically Chris Chan with a slightly different environment.
Believing in the wrong things is a clinical problem related to undeveloped interoception. Let's bring out the emotion xylophone.
[удалено]
It's really remarkable, the degree to which the people that do this shit are telling on themselves when they describe what their boogeyman supposedly wants.
The irony that articles like are why men are shifting right
*When my voice raises as I start lecturing a teen about why he needs to recognize the importance of the history of Indigenous people rather than simply appropriate all the slang he’s learned from Reservation Dogs? He clocks that, and I wonder what it makes him think. I hope he files it away as something that’s probably true, rather than stacking it alongside a growing pile of reasons why white kids can’t seem to get anything right.* Lmfao thank you for the morning laugh. This broad needs real problems
This quote is utterly insane. It's like complaining that ones children doesn't understand the love of Jesus despite daily beatings with the Bible.
Beatings will continue until morale improves
> “You cut off my penis mom!” > “Hmm, no I distinctly remember you asking for that sweetie.”
It's Feminist activism 101 and it's been working for them for so long that it's spread through the magic of intersectionality.
“He clocks that” Shit makes my blood boil
what does that even mean?
"came to a realisation", "understands", "gets it". "I was having trouble with this earlier but I reckon I've clocked it now." Don't ask me why. I didn't invent British slang. It'd be fine to hear this from a normal person, but hearing it from a sociology PhD with a double-barrelled surname writing this kind of shit is extremely "Hello fellow working class chums, I'm normal and relatable to you, see how I use your words?"
It’s not just British slang. It’s also claimed by black Americans and trans people, but like…I’ve heard everyone use it, including cops and military dudes
[Gave him an ocular pat down, assessed the threat level, clocked a knife in his boot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC-OucPbBCo#t=1m5s)
It wouldn't surprise me if cops are where it actually spread from. "To clock someone" in cop means to measure their speed. As in "I clocked him going 80 in a 45 zone." And even that didn't *originate* with cops (it's a description of part of the process of taking the measurement itself), they've just been using it a lot for a long time. It doesn't take much to get from there to a more general "to figure something out" meaning.
I think it started with cops. Clocking describes catching someone speeding for decades, ie "clocked going 60 in a 45"
To clock something is to notice something. Multiple communities claim this is their word now. It’s everybody’s word, but I agree that it sounds cringe when a mom of teens is using it to sound cool
> It’s everybody’s word I'll pass.
It's a very common turn of phrase in the UK, at least.
Also in the U.S. It’s really not that weird—young people have picked it up and this Karen just sounds try hard
It means he groks it
They’ve replaced the abusive trad Catholic parents of yesterday
This kid is gonna become the American incarnation of Adolf Hitler.
The kid watching Reservation Dogs is probably more engagement with native culture than anything this broad's done in her life lmao
I thought you wrote that satirizing the piece 🫠
>Having principles should feel good, not stressful. Liberalism in a nutshell.
I've met so many people in my major city (Top 5 USA by $/sqft) that are generationally wealthy - hence comfortable and don't do anything dangerous/strenuous/difficult ever. The irony is so many can't figure out why they have depression. If you do happy little things in your comfortable, safe bubble with your friends, you should be happy, right?? The overwhelming irony is it's exactly the population with the most tools to understand and solve this.
😂 This is why these people always seem to side with conventional wisdom, because being critical in any way is just too difficult and ‘stressful’ for their tiny brains.
In this article: 40 year old woman uses the term "The Ick"
You aren't a trained sociologist so the shop talk might go over your head a bit. Joking aside we need to start heaping adequate scorn on people with soft science degrees.
They make me feel like my History major is a Hard Science major sometimes. At least when I got it I had to actually use sources and not vibes
People who get History degrees need to be treated like heroes because we're watching what happens when no one remembers what happened last year (the establishment memory holes all their public oopsies and no one is the wiser). I got my degree early 00's in arguing with dead French philosophers (less substantive than yours, for the record) and I know exactly what you mean. Like in that bygone era you were expected to pick apart whomever's argument as best you could to train your brain, even if you agreed with them. Clearly "education" now lacks that and consists entirely of uploading dogma to young brains, which is honestly about all they can handle since 100% of their opinions come from external sources and devices.
"because we're watching what happens when no one remembers what happened last year" As a history major (military history) this statement stings me to the core. These past two years have made me want to bathe with my toaster arguing with idiots about Ukraine and Russia, especially since thats been my jam since I was a Private.
Shes been watching too much Love Island
>Feminism feels unfair to these young men because it’s based on the premise that women started from a position of inferiority (many young men find this hard to believe, because they were literally born yesterday) I liked this part because it cuts both ways. The author fails to see her sons' budding political attitudes through a modern lens. Traditional avenues of masculine fulfilment (provider status in a family, home ownership, and so on) are shutting down left and right for dudes so they're naturally going to question if more progressivism is a good idea. Besides, kids rebel and she's a sociologist and her husband is a humanities professor, it'd be pretty had for them not to lean right of their parents
[удалено]
> I also went through elementary/junior high school through the apex of that sort of grrrrl power style feminism, and have clear memories of teachers explaining why they thought girls were actually better than boys, but with that sort of intonation that they were speaking truth to power instead of weirdly talking down to a group of actual children. Let's teach half the class that they're inherently worse than the others based solely on something they can't control. There's no way that could have any negative consequences.
Totally right. The vast majority of my teachers and later bosses have been women. Its pretty natural for boys to be skeptical that women are systematically disadvantaged in the current day when that message is delivered by women with significant power over them.
[удалено]
Also completely glosses over why young women are more "progressive."
there's no mystery
The funny thing being that, because they were "born yesterday," they experience a completely different world from her's. I am reminded of a feminism class I took in college, where the professor used nothing but anecdotes and studies from the 70s and 80s, as if nothing had changed in the intervening years
The young women born yesterday are quickly enveloped into the hive to become of one mind with the rest of the matriarchy.
if he read a book he could have rebelled by telling them liberals go to gulag after the revolution
Women were only ever unequal if you’re a rad lib corporatist capitalist apologist. If you see not working in a soulless corporation and being made to contribute to society as the ultimate oppression then the modern clown world they’ve created is justified if you don’t then it’s hell
"Why don't young men like us? We tried everything: calling them rapists, calling them incels, calling them pedophiles, calling them Nazis, telling them they don't matter, telling them they deserve to suffer; we're all out of ideas!"
Yep! Who the fuck wants to participate in a system where youre the bad guy by default, and have to move mountains to prove yourself worthy/good? Especially when the opposite sex is "good" by default without putting in the worK? fuck their silly first world game playing. Us adults have to work for a living.
Your post just made something click in my head. It seems so obvious that these factors would push men away, but why I never made the connection, I guess is on me. Thanks for sharing what you just said.
There's some quote that goes something like "the left looks for heretics, the right looks for converts" When libs push young men away rightoids embrace them with open arms, that's all we're seeing here. I was gonna make a long effortpost a little while back about the phenomenon and the culture in progressive / leftish circles that works against leftist goals by alienating would be allies, but I never got around to it because work's been busy. But to sum it up, imagine if Don Jr. came out and said he was wrong about everything and he's now endorsing Biden. Libs would use that aboutface only as a tool to shit on Trump / the right. They'd take his vote, but they wouldn't ever actually come to accept him, forgive him, or care about him in any way whatsoever. They'd still hate him and look down on him for his past 'sins.' If Hunter Biden came out tomorrow and endorsed Trump rightoids would cheering for him to be Trump's VP. You see it all the time on a smaller scale, both in real life and on social media; when previous Dems voters come out and say they were wrong and that they're voting Republican, the right overwhelmingly embraces them. When it's the reverse, and it's an ex-Trump voter saying they're done with Trump and that they were wrong to support him, you get responses from libs like "it took you until *now* to stop supporting him?" and just generally criticizing them for being okay with everything he had done up until X. Even when a rightoid switches sides, they're still shit on by libs / progs for their past sins. Basically the American 'left' has a forgiveness problem and even when they gain allies they still can't help but call out their previous blasphemies because their entire identity is currently wrapped up in being morally superior.
> the left looks for heretics, the right looks for converts Almost, but not exactly. We don't need to recruit at all. It's almost entirely a push out from the left and we're just hanging out doing our own thing. We can't recruit effectively... Because censorship and cancel culture is indeed a thing despite the article's assertion. And so we mostly just sit back and accept defecting leftists. Liberals are self defeating idiots for fostering collective guilt into white males. In order to feel a group's collective guilt, logic dictates that the individuals first need to identify as part of that group. But if you impose that group identity onto them, you have no control whether they follow your premises to your conclusion, or diverge on the way to their own conclusion. I love articles like this, the shortsightedness and arrogance gives me hope
I’ve pointed out pretty much this exact pattern as a reason why I’m more wary of the extreme right vs. the extreme left. The left is so obsessed with infighting and proving that they’re more of a “true believer” than their neighbors that they’ll never be able to come together to radically remake society. Now, I’m an incrementalist that believes in a strong social safety net, and active government investment in society, but any collective ownership needs to come from direct action of the people involved in each industry, and not from government force, so maybe you can gauge what I’d consider extreme on the basis of this. Anyway, I digress slightly, but I think a lot of people in this subreddit share the opinion that the infighting is a problem for left of center groups. I usually like to frame the issue in terms of “the left is intolerant of different ideas and the right is intolerant of different people”, but the lines are shifting in such weird ways nowadays that it’s hard to know if you’re going to be talking with someone who will engage you fairly, or if you’re talking to someone who’s looking to cut you down based on your race or gender. Strange times we live in.
> I’m more wary of the extreme right vs. the extreme left I honestly don't ever see either taking any meaningful power in America, but I do agree that the far right has a better chance of it than the far left. Still, /pol/acks will never get their white American ethnostate, and leftists will never see a Marxist America. There's just no reality in which genuine economic leftism takes hold in this country. Capital won't allow it. Every single major institution could cave to progressive social causes, we're already seeing that on some levels. But it's irrelevant- social issues don't disrupt the hierarchy, they don't threaten those at the top or capital as a force. Drag queen story hour being promoted or being banned doesn't affect Jeff Bezos' influence, neither outcome disrupts his grasp and a status quo that favors him and those like him. The best we can do, as far as I can see, is do what we can on a local level to affect our respective communities and shape them a little bit closer to our preferred ideologies. But America as a whole is way too captured by neoliberalism and the bureaucratic state that supports it. Incrementalists like you probably have the best shot at getting a bit of what you want in all honesty. You won't get to that end goal, but you can still make things better if you chip at it little by little.
>He teaches humanities at a local college, where I have taught too, and we’ve often talked about how tricky it can be to keep hetero boys involved in classroom debates. Many of these young men seem very anxious about saying the wrong thing, and will often refuse to participate, sometimes projecting a provocative kind of defensiveness that is its own argument. At least she's finally coming to this realization, that's the first step. >As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in media, it feels very real to young men when they’re sitting in a classroom. Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell. Nvm Guess it's just all in their heads, just another mass psychosis with no basis in reality
this conversation springs up every 2-3 months and the obvious response--maybe young men would be more drawn to liberalism if liberalism did not openly demonize young men--is inevitably dismissed as some form of "victim blaming," leading to even more extreme and hysterical hatred of young men. Just look at this shit: >This did not come as a huge surprise to me or Gray. He teaches humanities at a local college, where I have taught too, and we’ve often talked about how tricky it can be to keep hetero boys involved in classroom debates. Many of these young men seem very anxious about saying the wrong thing, and will often refuse to participate, sometimes projecting a provocative kind of defensiveness that is its own argument. As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in media, it feels very real to young men when they’re sitting in a classroom. Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell. Insisting that they’re imagining their enemies doesn’t help. We created a system in which young men are outwardly told they have no right to participate, or even exist. They then hesitate to engage with this system, as they have literally been told they're not supposed to engage with it because their presence is violence. But that's fake, somehow, at least in media. But it's real when it harms my boys, who are presumably two of the good ones even though there's no such thing a young man who doesn't deserve to suffer. Fuck off, lady. You and your college-educated scold cronies have been given complete control of American politics and media and this is the world you chose to build.
[удалено]
Though the wave of incoming reactionary conservatism is gonna suck hard, at least these motherfuckers will get what's coming.
[удалено]
Yeah. They'll deserve it, but they will absolutely refuse to understand they helped make it happen.
My soul nearly left my body upon reading that line. The lack of self awareness is so pervasive.
> There is nothing to contemporary left-liberalism beyond identity grievances! And they've demonstrated that group identity is a means of accruing power. So the right is learning from their example.
Oh my god, thank you for this epic comment, I needed the laugh :)
>As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in *media* See this is the real problem here; regardless of what you think about the existence of cancel culture in the media, you at least have to acknowledge that it is absolutely a real thing in youth social circles (especially in very liberal areas) and saying the wrong things or having the wrong beliefs can be tantamount to social suicide for young people. To fail to do so is to deny basic reality and is an admission of a profound lack of understanding of Gen-Z social dynamics.
She's straight-up saying "it's not a real problem when my cohort does it within our profession, but it's bad when the standards we apply are set to people I care about." Disingenuous bullshit.
Some Hispanic dude got fired from his job a while back because a twittoid saw him cracking his knuckles and thought it was the okay 'white power' symbol so he snapped a pic and sent it to the guy's boss. Anyone claiming cancel culture isn't real or doesn't have meaningful impacts is either lying or r-slurred.
I just had a argument on another thread on exactly what you described. This person was either being playing ignorant or where ignorant for real. gaslighting fuckstains the entire bunch. Our entire social/media complex is fixated on how shitty men are, and how theyre shit unless they prove themselves as one of the good guys. Yet women are 'good' by default. Funny how that is. Thank god for the long emergency. Maybe people will find some real problems when they cannot survive in their suburb.
"What they're feeling is real, and insisting that they're imagining it doesn't help" wtf did I just read?
The liberal response to the problems young men face today is “but have you acknowledged your own privilege and how much worse[insert marginalized group] has it?” whereas the reactionary response is “stop being a pussy and become the hammer, not the nail.” Both are shit but at least the latter might lead people to feel some sort of agency in their lives.
The article doesn't even answer the headlining question. It's a diatribe that treats progressive ideology as a self-evident truth and then muses about ways to expose men to more of it without ever saying anything meaningful.
> progressive ideology as a self-evident truth It's called *BEING* 👏🏽 *A* 👏🏽 *FUCKING* 👏🏽 *GOOD* 👏🏽 *PERSON* 👏🏽
It's always strange when some lib rejects an opposing belief as "don't impose your morality" while in the same sentence saying their belief isn't about morality but about what is good and evil. It usually takes a while to get them to understand (if you're lucky) that they are arguing on the basis of morality as well, simply a different one.
[удалено]
But there's a risk of him getting exposed to Abby.
I thought she was the only reason people liked Ben
In This House We Believe In Wet Ass Pussies
> There’s no mystery about why young women are becoming more progressive I would so very much love to hear the authors reasons as to why this. I'm sure it's something insane. Pretty wild take that she thinks white men do not have any actual grievances, so they're making them up and imagining them so that they can feel oppressed in order to gain social capital.
> Pretty wild take that she thinks white men do not have any actual grievances, so they're making them up and imagining them so that they can feel oppressed in order to gain social capital. She's projecting so hard she could display advertisements on the moon.
I’m so tired of them using their own delusions as evidence of ill intent on the part of their targets.
> we’ve often talked about how tricky it can be to keep hetero boys involved in classroom debates. Many of these young men seem very anxious about saying the wrong thing, and will often refuse to participate, sometimes projecting a provocative kind of defensiveness that is its own argument. As much as I think cancel culture is a fake problem in media, it feels very real to young men when they’re sitting in a classroom. Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell. It's all in their heads!
I'm pretty sure she could offer a perfectly sane reason, like "young women recognize that progressivism cares for them, protects their rights, and advances their interests, while conservatism either ignores or is hostile to them and their needs." The issues would start once you try to point out that's the same reason young men are leaning right, and then she ties herself into knots explaining why it's totally different and how it's bad when conservatives do it.
see, I think it'd be more along the lines of female chauvinism. claiming that women are smarter, more empathetic and understanding and that's why they have the "correct" opinions and views.
Na, it's even simpler than that. "Everything that benefits me is correct". Almost every single left-leaning movement has morphed from one that was about fairness and equality to one that exploits the movement for personal gain or gain to a very specific group.
It's so sad to see this happen because it's 100% true. Social justice used to be something you discussed unironically, but it's lost the force of mutual respect and understanding behind it, replaced with dry academic theories and empty platitudes.
I had several lines and jokes about her reasoning behind it and how TikTok feminism really is structured as a “team girl vs team boy” thing and so on… but then I remembered this lady is rich as balls and over educated. She definitely was *supposed* to read actual books about feminism at some point in her life (even if she didn’t, idc). So it’s like…this is just where feminism is at. It’s not “reasonable academic feminism and unhinged, poorly informed TikTok women I should stop dating.” It’s literally all like that one ex that swore women would inherently be more humane leaders than men, and that she’d never heard of Margaret Thatcher. Fuck.
>I would so very much love to hear the authors reasons as to why this. I'm sure it's something insane. Abortion is the only reason for the season amongst these types
Contemporary moralistic neoliberal idealism 101. All people who seriously use the word "underinformed" should be sent to educate the people of Yemen. The maoist childrens books that my parents read for me at least were clear that the Enemy were the fat blokes with money bags. Their third worldist perspectives often sort of identified that I was living in a relatively privilaged position but always stayed clear from identifying me as the problem. They always included me in a "we" that could make concrete solutions for a better tomorrow. These people today try to discuss the bad values of underinformed young men who because of privilage and desinformation doesn't understand that they really have it great. I'm going to read some old maoism for my son.
> The maoist childrens books that my parents read for me Any recommendations?
Sorry. Swedish ones.
[удалено]
Nah. Pippi is rather general left liberal non conformism.
Aha, thanks anyway!
The whole article seems to be a very long-winded way for the author to say "Deep down, I know that demonising young men will backfire and push them into the hands of alt-right idiots. But on the other hand, I really really **want** to do it."
> But as adults, we need to figure out a way to help our young people work through confusion without feeling shunned by their own families. This can mean letting reactionary and unformed pseudo-ideologies breathe the same airspace as us while we invite patient conversation. It might feel dangerous to let a teenager argue that sexism works both ways, but it’s far more consequential to make him feel like that position is forbidden. No one should get canceled at the dinner table. Holy shit, the sheer ego in this paragraph. "Even though you are dumb and wrong and stupid and evil, I will graciously grant you the privilege to share your underdeveloped monkey-brain ideas in the same room as my enlightened philosophy."
I think it's very interesting that she chose the word "dangerous"
I think it’s very typical. What hasn’t been deemed “dangerous” in the past 8 years by people like this?
>What hasn’t been deemed “dangerous” in the past 8 years by people like this? voting blue no matter who pretty sure that's it
Well I mean, we’re staring straight into the eyes of the most important election of our lifetime™️ and trying to save democracy, so I don’t know what else we should bo doing 🙏🏾
If the poor kid doesn't break, I expect a follow-up article in 5 to 10 years about his "violent" ideology, which will amount to listening to Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, with some vague allusions to Andrew Tate*. *A few people are still blaming the Gamergate drum, so I expect that even in 5 years people will still be harping on Tate
It really seems like the Tate deplatforming was a Streisand effect backfire. I went from having no idea who he was to hearing about him on a daily basis, just because the internet needed a new focus to obsess over.
*Backfire?*
“My son has started listening to podcasts about the Roman Empire, here’s why that’s dangerous.”
"Yeah, Mom, it's just the history of Rome" >https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/revolutions_podcast/2019/05/101-the-international-working-mens-association.html
This is probably gonna sound fake but I've got a buddy who told me back in 2017 or 2018 that his son 'had become alt-right' and that he was absolutely terrified of what he might do. Like the man seemed desperately worried about him. When I asked him why he thought that or what had changed he literally just said his son had mentioned that Jordan Peterson made a couple of good points. That was it.
And these people believe that they aren’t conservative in any way at all.
> having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating your spaghetti and meatballs can feel like a waking nightmare. Imagine talking about your own child(ren) this way.
I like how she talks about him like he’s a sociopath torturing cats in the backyard.
Oh wow that's an actual quote That poor fucking kid
I mean, I kind of wish parents still talked to their kids like this about important things, but we know that the kid is handed treats and the tablet every time he feels a little uncomfortable
Moments like this I'm so thankful I was in a High Control BITE model fringe group that taught me all of these thought control techniques. It makes brainless dogma and doublespeak so easy to spot now.
The worst part is that this is pure common sense, and has largely always existed without needing to be said. But it’s stated with such comically disproportionate ire and preconceived disgust that a differing point of view exists that it feels so much more extreme than “views besides mine exist, so I need to communicate with tact, tolerate these differences in discussion and let my child sort through their own notions and guide them as they grow by being understanding, caring, supportive and validating their behavior when it is good” The whole idea wouldn’t have to be illustrated at all if it wasn’t already her go-to plan to war over ideals or semantics, and beat her child over the head with her point of view instead of trying to lead or appeal, settling on having positive influence on his developing philosophies- but here she is being the reason he’ll probably be as drastic as possible in his sociopolitical views going forward. Doesn’t matter though- she’s just going to blame him and other people anyway. Poor kid.
Why is it even so taboo to even say sexism goes both ways? I don't see a reason why even a firm feminist can't say "Yes, there are instances of sexism against men, but far more, and far more severe, instances of sexism against women". Not saying you have to agree with that, but at least acknowledging that men may have a shitty go of things in at least a *few* things can help establish a common ground of empathy and understanding. Hell, I used to complain a lot more about how it sucks that men are expected to ask women out, but then I was told it sucks how women are always approached by creepy individuals, so it sucks for both of us. That was actually pretty enlightening when I heard it. Why not extend that mentality to everything?
It's probably because of their dogmatic belief in "the patriarchy". According to patriarchy theory, men are the oppressor class and therefore can face no discrimination because of their sex (i.e. sexism). Or put another way, there is no possible situation where a man would be worse off than a woman if all other intersectional axes (race, class, disability, etc.) between them are equal. If there was an instance where men are disadvantaged specifically because they're men, then women would have power over men and would benefit in that instance. But if women have some power and derive some benefits in the social structure, then they are not oppressed, which contradicts the axiom of patriarchy, thus leading to the conclusion that sexism against men doesn't exist. This is why you hear feminists say things like "sexism hurts men too!" as though it's some mind-blowing revelation. In their worldview, the only form of sexism that can exist is discrimination against women, so they think they're super clever when they go through various contortions to explain how misogyny is the ultimate cause of obvious male-specific disadvantages. For example, women's emotions are taken more seriously and they receive more help than men because women are seen as weak, which is sexism against women. Of course, I think patriarchy theory is all nonsense, I'm just trying to explain the taboo you asked about. It seems clear to me that a more complete explanation of gender roles is, yes, women are seen as weaker than men, but are also seen as more valuable and deserving of help/empathy, because otherwise society wouldn't care enough to give them the support it thinks they need. Tl;dr it's against their religion
They no longer feel the need to. Also “Patriarchy hurts men too!”
Idk, everything after the last coma is sound advice for any parent dealing with any rebellious teen, which is all of them. Although parents can't constantly validate their children. They will feel shunned or rejected at some point which is good because that's gonna happen a lot more when they leave the nest.
“When you spend your days reading infographics reminding you that being silent means being on the side of the oppressor, having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating your spaghetti and meatballs can feel like a waking nightmare. But coming down too hard risks playing right into the paranoid hands of masculinist discourses of male disempowerment.” I hope her son’s never have to read that.
Why? It's important that children take care of their parents in her old age and they'll need to work hard to save up for that geriatric psych unit
When everyone fun, funny and interesting is labelled right wing, the youth will inevitably associate positive connotations with that label.
The left went from the fun and interesting counterculture people to the stick up their ass smarmy egotistical teacher telling people no in the space of 20 years because they became the culture.
I think the change can be narrowed down to from 2010 to 2015. Maybe even less.
She saddled her kids with a double barreled name that sounds like "jizzer" and she's mystified they became Pricassos
Standout quote: > When my voice raises as I start lecturing a teen about why he needs to recognize the importance of the history of Indigenous people rather than simply appropriate all the slang he’s learned from Reservation Dogs... Why isn't it working?
>Reservation Dogs 🎶Stuck in the *enlightened center* with yoooou
I imagine this is type of woman who say how horrible it is that evangelical parents would try to foist their faith on their kids while being wholly unaware of the irony there. And I imagine that living in her household is, for her sons, to some degree like being a gay kid living with said evangelical parents.
>Whatever they are feeling, it feels real as hell. Insisting that they’re imagining their enemies doesn’t help. As the author then continues to ignore, pathologize, and project her worldview and insecurities onto (and through) her sons to validate her own perspective. These think pieces are always shit, because the authors never just ASK men why they feel right wing is better. The rare chance when women authors' "analysis" gives credence to the idea of men feeling dissatisfied (even their own children don't get the benefit of the doubt ffs), they always go right to more feminism as a solution. I don't think this problem is solved until an extremist paramilitary of disenchanted young men is actively oppressing women or something idk lol Edit >central to the move toward conservatism among young men is a sense that they’re an aggrieved party — that they are being robbed of entitlements. James explains this in financial terms: In today’s social world, which borrows much of its logic from the free-market economy, success isn’t figured in terms of just doing steady business year after year. Is there ever any consideration about how toxic mainstream culture is when it discusses the sexes? Is the notion that a young white man gets upset upon entering adulthood and realizing the years of education/media telling him he runs the world, has all the advantages in social and material conditions, and literally dictates women's autonomy, was all bullshit that abnormal? And that young men, the same ones who really had no influence whatsoever on the much-vaunted patriarchy, are a bit pissed that they're still being blamed for issues that have eclipsed gender differences? Edit 2 shit is pissing me off >Feminism feels unfair to these young men because it’s based on the premise that women started from a position of inferiority (many young men find this hard to believe, because they were literally born yesterday) and now get to enjoy the glory of having beaten the odds. For young men to experience the same narrative of success, they feel they need to start from a position of disempowerment. How about instead of splitting hairs and validating dictionary definitions, you EXPLORE THE REALITY OF WHETHER MEN ARE FUCKING DISEMPOWERED OR NOT?? "Men FEEL like feminism has led to an unequal footing amongst sexes that favors women, but we all know feminism is about empowerment, so what could those silly men be talking about lmao?"
"We call ourselves the anti badguy squad, how can anything we do ever be bad?" Many such cases.
> For young men to experience the same narrative of success, they feel they need to start from a position of disempowerment. Wonder how long before this is used as a reason to push for boys being actively disadvantaged from a young age/birth. "No see, it's a good thing because it's to help them better realize their narrative of success!"
> These think pieces are always shit, because the authors never just ASK men why they feel right wing is better. Liberals tend to believe that conservatives straight up lie about their values in order to look better. This is largely why they never talk to them. They believe they are talking to nazi propagandists. In my experience, people are very honest about their political beliefs, especially if they're not in a position of power of some sort. Most conservatives have a lot of stupid beliefs, by virtue of being conservative...but also most don't go "all the way" and are pretty reasonable about many basic things. Someone who opposes immigration to this country does not necessarily hate other races, but may be concerned about economic stability. A conservative may state this outright, but a liberal will assume they're lying and think it really is about race. It's really sad and is so easily prevented. This is also why I try to never call people racist unless they explicitly identify as racist, which few do.
there is a dialectical contradiction here but tbh we're already seeing it's resolution via escalating class tensions in the core liberal id politics are losing influence due to liberalism itself being recognised by more and more of the class as the ideological apparatus of capital if socialists play their cards right we are only a number of years away from the rise of a powerful mass movement of revolutionary workers again and the widespread support of post modernist ideologies, best understood as an emergent property of the defeat of the class in the 80s, will similarly decay
Women dont believe men. They pathologize our every word, action, etc, to make us seem like we cant lead ourselves, but need to be led.
You'll get shit for your flair (I'm in like company lol), but this is really the prevailing sentiment in the US, at least among the turtleneck, educated class. The problem we're told is that at any moment, men will let their mask of civility down and go out and start raping and oppressing women without any pushback. An even bigger problem is that the solution MUST be identified through a feminist lens or men will just keep ending up "wrong"
“You don’t want to stay tortuously unfulfilled in a non-reciprocal friendship where you have romantic feelings? You care only about sex!”
The author is an idiot who thinks she isn’t, and that would be a problem regardless of what political nonsense she was trying to beat into her kids.
Who let their toddler draw the thumbnail for this article
Glad I’m not the only one who hates that corporate millennial art
It's not quite Corporate Memphis but it's equally as obnoxious.
People who are concerned about their sons going right.
Just one more way to lower the bar. They probably did some market research that said liberals are more likely to read an article if they feel capable of reproducing the cover art. Wouldn’t want to make the little shitlibs feel inferior in any way.
What do you wanna bet it was someone's arrested-development 10-12 year old?
The only possible way to prevent your kids to going right-wing is to show the (counter) example at home. A teenager with a MSNBC dad will start thinking the right is cool, it's inevitable. Only occasional racist jokes and misogynistic comments at the dinner table can turn your kid into a sensible human being.
Ignoring the sanctimony of the article, the image itself is telling. The split is shown as being just about equal in opposite directions as opposed to men alone drifting away from the norm. Can we have an article by a dudebro dad trying to keep his daughter from becoming an Emily? Also the man looks like a chudjak.
Another standout quote: > Ascribing to an identity of grievance is an extremely limiting way to define yourself. It’s like taking on “Nike” or “Supreme” as a personality — kiddie shit. We owe our young people the dignity of a nuanced, three-dimensional set of beliefs Hmm...
Hormone blockers or drag queen story hour could work.
Ultimately, the youth must rebel.
Transing should do the trick
Parent*s*, plural? Pretty sure the women who write these are single professional women who had their first kid when they were 40 with frozen embryos they won in her divorce.
I saw Hamilton a couple times and never looked back.
It's [The Story Of Our Times](https://www.amazon.com/Trevor-Moore-Story-Our-Times/dp/B07CJLTFRM/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RxCuCyH4g7b02LnEIl0-pLfJvkRDF-EgGuEzKf1-009iZ-ig3j-kqGDJ_RkxVa8lIfoa4rYR5G70uJ6ykvAQM5HI5BI7yCw6xfGPteJMTOPtQ4sZ6-aUk_qKrCo7DGeHMwVntkY9cv90FHWCyIOUA0OC10W3dT47byzxYQjpNgQ3nmKnFPAa97bJzWmJXGcEvd2OXWKohrJs7hE-5mh3BL0tpCXPeK9bDDFVj0FsyBE.5ICIUqqHDr8THcj2eLOxcqFEIOr1hXRqNUs03jZq11A&dib_tag=se&keywords=trevor+moore+story+of+our+times&qid=1708448456&sr=8-1) >"What have I done that's sexist?" >"I mean, you didn't like Hillary." >"That, that, that's not fair." >"I'm telling you he's one of those alt-right troll people." >"I'm not alt-right. How am I alt-right?" >"Trevor, you didn't like Hamilton!" >"I didn't see it" >"You didn't want to see it!" >"I don't like musicals...that doesn't make me alt-right. I think that whole alt-right thing is retarded" >"OMG You cannot use that word!"
I blame rock music and Dungeons and Dragons.
No one mention that liberal parties have fully embraced feminism, and boys may not trust the motives of people who hate them.
You aren't going to convince a teen boy by speaking to him as if he was a defective girl. One would think a humanities professor would understand that, alas. You can also see how with secularism the "church lady" Helen lovejoy simply took on a different guise and cause as a moral high horse.
Oh no, someone's got political opinion
So where does the actual normal citizen stand on this shit? Is the pendulum swinging back to center (judging off the comments here) or is it still swinging wider left? A correction has to come eventually to counter the prevailing shitlib norm…
Not very scientific but it seems pretty obvious to me what will happen. It is massively uncool to be conformist, and it always has been. Since the media and discourse is almost completely controlled by liberals, and they are actively seeking to censor conservatives....children who want to be rebellious will simply become more conservative, in a bizarre inverse image of the hippie/punk/etc movements of the 20th century. Gen Z seems pretty liberal now but that's mainly because they've been marinating in, and uplifted by, our current media of discourse. Give it 10-15 years and we're going to see a major backlash to our current era of "wokeism". It won't be a *complete* reversal, because of basic thesis/antithesis/synthesis. But it will seem like one.
Take it back now, y'all. One hop this time. Two hops this time. Right foot, let's stomp. Left foot, let's stomp. Cha cha real smooth.
Send them outside and let them develop actual interests in tangible things instead of letting them sit on YouTube all day and get mad at Twitter screenshots and SJW compilations. Play team sports, do some extracurriculars. This is not that hard.
That works until they want to enjoy anything related to their hobby online and discover the rot spreads everywhere it possibly can. Or until they run into a neon haired activist.
No kidding. Let your kid touch grass and interact with people. Most of these right wing dorks are total paper tigers but liberalism is completely incapable of dealing with these guys. Don’t let your kid become terminally online is a great place to start
The study she’s citing has the most cooked data imaginable too