Incentives don't always have to be of commercial value; they can also be moral and assumed.

You don't usually receive commercial value for rescuing an animal, helping a child, or sheltering a woman. What I am saying is, why can't we offer the same moral incentive to men? They are often portrayed as oppressors, and more value can be extracted from the "oppressor bogeyman" than from actually addressing and solving the problems.

What you are describing is not solving the problem; it is, at best, putting the problem under the rug, or at worst, getting rid of the problem altogether.

I think backfiring would be the wrong phrasing, Caucasian people after all statistically get the best outcome in pretty much every demographic of life IIRC.

For instance i remember as a youngster feeling like life was tough in the USA--until i visited Africa. I don't think its right though to for instance blame current people from England for the occupation of say, India, but I also don't think right for them to claim their country hasn't somehow benefited from it and through that, they themselves.

I am optimistic about the future though. I am biracial and I feel as mobility/travel/the acceptance of others has grown eventually we will all be one--and yes I realize how sappy that is.

That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.

As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.

The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don't want to be relegated to that role.

If a dam is leaking, smacking it and tell it to be more 'dam-like' will only break the dam eventually. For the people drowning, "the dam should have held, because that's what dams do"

For people who want to improve our world, the goal needs to be defined as reducing gender conflict by increasing mutual gender respect. These words you've shared do not invite respect, but conflict. It is a phrase of someone who does not offer support, but demands submission.

Now it's easy to reply "yes, I am demanding that men to stop killing women, and if that's "submission", so be it". It's of course a correct position.

But it would not be what you said. And there are a thousand ways to twist that phrase to deepen the conflict, out of context, or even subverting that context. And the conflict then only depends.

Resentment is a knife. It's a tool of division, not unity. We should not use it to divide people by gender.

Wat?

The manosphere is literally a bunch of losers that can't get laid and are making excuses for it.

Work out. Have a career. Don't be a asshole. Do that and you can get laid but that's too hard for some folks.

They're groomed from a young age by the manosphere to be losers that can't get laid, so they'll continuously buy self-help books from the manosphere.

They still vote though. And this all happens because to a teenager, the manosphere are the cool guys making fun of the whiny nerds.

There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn't look half as bad.

I can see that parents failed young men and the education system failed young men. But these men aren’t entitled to a woman or a high paying job. And quite frankly they probably aren’t capable of those things or they would be solving their own problems instead of blaming women for them

Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br>
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994

So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war, TERFs are a thing too & guess what ? The feminists do not oppose the draft. (Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)

"2Sure Finland's female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br> https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994"

If you see feminism as every time there are women in government, why do you oppose feminism?

"So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war"

They're a right-wing austerity government but I'll bite, which war are you talking about?

"TERFs are a thing too"

Sure, I never said all feminists are left-wing. There are reactionary strands of feminism (if we accept that they are indeed feminists) such TERFs for example. My point is that feminism is not a monolith and the bulk of it is left-wing.

"The feminists do not oppose the draft."

Correction: A country right next to an expansionist dictatorship does not oppose the draft. I'll probably get shouted at buy when you are right next to a country like Russia, the draft is a necessary evil.

"(Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)"

Perhaps the draft should be extended to women. In any case, irrelevant to your "point" about feminism.

The lack of income independent from your spouse is a huge argument against being a housewife.

I'm literally fucking gaslight by being told I don't have ADHD, told my stomach issues are just because I eat fast, planning is stupid and other incredibly dumb shit. I have to listen to an anti-waxxer father talk shit for over an hour.

What does that have to do with your gender? These are problems we all go through because our healthcare system is failing because they put profits before people.

I had to watch friends sprout sigma shit, called a woman I brought into the server "the huzz", and called me a fucking pussy. Actually, I don't have to deal with your bullshit either.

Sounds like you have shitty sexist friends... Again I fail to see how that has anything to do with misandry. That's toxic masculinity, not misandry. You aren't being targeted because you are male, you are being targeted because your shithole friends don't see you as male enough.

Manosphere men fall pray to the XY problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem?wprov=sfla1.

They demand the X which is a girlfriend and money in order to solve problem Y which is a lack of social connectedness and decreasing standards of living.

They believe themselves entitled to X because of that. Actually, everyone (including Manosphere men) is entitled to a solution to Y which affects everyone appart from the bourgois (who still lack social connectedness) but the solution to that is Z which is a wholesale restructuring of our society and economy to one that is maximally democratic and socialist.

Succeed at capitalism? That's a fool's errand. Better to point them to the real enemy which is the bourgeoisie and the real solution which is for the working class to form democratic organizations aimed at overthrowing the ruling class and form worker led democratic ways of organizing society.

There no way Andrew Tate is cool at a party.

Hiring someone over someone else purely because of their race or sex is discrimination, racism, and/or sexism.

It sounds to me like you’re talking about jobs that illegal immigrants do, especially once you brought up cheap labor. Jobs like those don’t have diversity quotas, because they almost entirely hire from the “diversity” pool.

Someone watches his shit.

That's kind of the thing, we want to think they're a bunch of sexless losers, but the basic tenets of advice you get from the manosphere will probably get you laid if you follow it. Following manosphere advice works because it's the exact same advice you just laid out but packaged in a more attractive and focused manner. It just happens to be with a side of right wing politics and more than a bit of misogyny.

There are tons of young black men in the manosphere, too. Or else with whom manosphere ideas resonate. Don't be racist.