Just because the youtube algorithm promotes outrage doesn't make it right.

You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.

A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear "men are simple" we don't hear "men are stupid" but "finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins". If you wanted to say "men are stupid" you'd have said "men are primitive", it's not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.

Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with "but not everyone does that", "of course, all people are unique and different" then communication becomes a chore. It's like hearing "sunscreen is important" and insisting "of course, if it's winter that's a different issue, we wouldn't want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic". Come on.

And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. "No, really, it's fine that we don't have decorative towels" -- "There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation"... no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn't make them dirty again, that's all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There's a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.

I've got a song for you.

Let's try this again: If, as you say "women do empathy, men do resilience", then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.

I haven't seen any radical female content creators personally, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a large industry of them forming. If there is they're very well hidden and poorly advertised.

But if that happens I'd absolutely be for talking people away from listening to them.

"Unwomen" rings a bell for me.

I looked it up, and in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid 's Tale, Unwomen were infertile women sent to clean up toxic waste in the colonies.

Women and men-only clubs have a lot of value. We have women only clubs at work because our industry is pretty male-centric, so getting women access to good female mentors is super important because they're distributed across the company. Men can be good mentors for women too, sure, but anytime there's a minority, it's important to connect them to help them recognize and point out implicit biases. We have groups like that for racial minorities as well, and I think it's great.

Men and women also bond differently, so having a gender-specific club can lower barriers to connecting and finding support. That's true for other characteristics as well, like sexual and gender identity, race (I'm a huge fan of our black chamber of commerce in our predominantly white area), age, etc.

We should embrace and celebrate our differences, not try to hide them away. Let everyone have their own club, and maintain rules against intolerance as well.

Not false at all but a big part imo is also learned, it's like if I have 10 problems, 5 of which are totally my fault, and the only one talking about the other 5 says "ALL your problems are not your fault."

It's like one person actually fully reflected their experiences back to them, but then peddled a ton of lies along with it.

Oh, finally. The sexless/incels is a tiny part of the manosphere. We see them because we want to. You don't need to respect women in order to get affection, you need it to build love and trust

there was also tons of jews who supported hitler. The 'manosphere' pretends to be inclusive to men when its just a white nationalist spin off.

"see we have some black supporters! dont mind what we have planned for them after we take-over please! grrr! those pesky woman wont let us get laid! focus on that not the swastika in the background!"

Tell that to a child slave in a cobalt mine.

Being "dedicated to succeeding" is a one-way ticket to burnout.

Not necessarily. Lots of people haven't died in Rojava or in the areas of Southern Mexico controlled by the Zapatistas. Authoritarianism was the problem with restructurings you allude to, not socialism.

I have commented stuff like this before, and gotten it deleted (or gotten summarily banned). I have been searching for spaces where this sort of discourse is even allowed, where non-vagina-havers get to say that many men suck but it's not only their fault and they certainly can't fix it in a vacuum.

Right, listen to that manosophere and you can commit some R or SA ... Is that what you mean by "get laid"?

people like peterson, tate are largely responsible for thier recent changes too, although they are the latest symptom. peterson specifically is well funded by russia. i also see them discuss incel-ism in many online games too. almost always certain youtube videos like trek, star wars and disney will get these people in knots.

they also showed increased support from gen-xers and milleneals for trump too. when alpha come of age, i fear for them too. this also goes for POC men that went for trump.

probably better to call them hypermasculinity/toxic masculnity influencers.

i was thinking j peterson, and roegan. they convinceed alot of men to switch sides. both ironically are funded by putin.

Kids in my daughters class did a project about 'an issue that is important to you'. They could pick anything.

Most of the kids talked about interesting and positive fields like environmental protection/space exploitation or some sport they love to participate in. Three of the boys chose to talk about 'men's rights', and according to the teacher who I spoke to about it afterwards they were echoing Andrew Tate shit.

They were 10 years old at the time.

None of their parents are divorced either, so theres no 'woe story' from dad in the background to put any framing around this.

However, their parents are all conservative and all let their kids access Youtube with no oversight. So social media and lax/indifferent parenting are very much grooming the next generation into hateful misogynists like Tate.

Pretty sure I've commented this on Lemmy before, but I'm gonna drop a link to this Struthless video again because I think it's pretty good at getting the point and really reflected my experience as someone who was once a "young man on the internet", too.

Because they are being completely alienated. The hater haters are also on the rise. Those have even more troubled minds and it's the same on and on until the bottom. It's very easy to reach out to these young males, and fix them. But instead whine. They are straight up looking for role models and only dickheads speak their language. Like.. Tell a lost male to "man up" instead of expecting young males to have feelings is kinda dumb. It's been happening in history over and over. It's just on the rise to then start to wane to then rise again slightly lower the next time when people forget about caring for young males again. They aren't easy so I get it but Jesus with the influencer dicks becoming their fathers.. It's so pathetic