Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers
“As soon as I mention feminism, you can feel the shift in the room; they’re shuffling in their seats.” Mike Nicholson holds workshops with teenage boys about the challenges of impending manhood. Standing up for the sisterhood, it seems, is the last thing on their minds.
When Nicholson says he is a feminist himself, “I can see them look at me, like, ‘I used to like you.’”
Once Nicholson, whose programme is called Progressive Masculinity, unpacks the fact that feminism means equal rights and opportunities for women, many of the boys with whom he works are won over.
“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,” he says.
But he is battling against what he calls a “dominance-based model” of masculinity. “These old-fashioned, regressive ideas are having a renaissance, through your masculinity influencers – your grifters, like Andrew Tate.”
“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,”
The same could be said about “communism” and “socialism”. The words have been turned dirty, such that people shy away from what is objectively a good thing when done honestly and to the letter of the principle.
Kind of like Critical Race Theory. If properly understood and applied, people would benefit from the knowledge and empathy.
Pretty much exactly the same, except CRT got knocked down before it even had established itself as a positive thing.
I bought the actual book because it was on sale and because I thought it would be hilarious to put out on my coffee table for when my conservative dad came to visit my house. I also figured I’d try to read it, because I should be informed about what it is so that I can argue for it, right?
Holy shit, it’s a lot of dense legal theory. I knew it was graduate material, but the book is a collection some of the most complex ideas, studies, and legal theory that I’ve ever read. I’m not going to lie that I won’t even make it a third of the way through it.
Anyone who argues that CRT is being taught in elementary schools and is being used to brainwash children hasn’t seen how high-level the material actually is and has no idea what they’re talking about.
In reality, the material is not that controversial. What I have read of it has been quite unbiased.
We need to stop teaching the children nuclear physics.
I know very little about CRT beyond some very general idea so idk if there’s a point to call it that specifically, but the naming choice is so bad that the first time I read it I assumed it’s some nazi thing and had 0 doubt about it.
Funnily, Capitalism could work too but I don’t expect billionaires to be honest or have any principles apart from hoarding for themselves.
I mean you could also say that Capitalism is a dirty word in some circles. And yet, it addresses many of the aspects of trade, which are needed through all societal systems.
Trade existed before capitalism.
give it 50 years and the arms race of language will have its own sub arms race
you’ll coin a politically charged term, someone will coin an antonym, the original will shift to change the subject, the antonym will change to match the new, someone will point out the process and both sides will deny its happening
So much strife comes from bickering over the definitions of words.
It would be helpful if people knew the definitions and context of words. Maybe some type of education could help.
Granted, Lemmy is a relatively safe place to do it, but bold move, walking out into public and describing Communism as “objectively good”.
Communism kind-of smeared itself. Everywhere where communism has been tried on a national scale, it has become authoritarianism.
Maybe it would be a good thing if done to the letter of the principle, but just like Libertarianism or Anarchism, it seems to be incompatible with human nature, at least so far.
But, socialism isn’t even a foreign idea. A lot of US institutions are socialist. The mail delivery is done by an arm of the government. Streets are paved by the government. Firefighters are government employees. The water delivered to your house is almost certainly by a government-run entity. People retiring without having saved enough are taken care of by the government. There’s medicare and medicaid.
A full capitalist system would have nothing done by the government that could be done by a business. No FDA, Pinkertons instead of Police, most army functions handed over to private contractors, every road privately owned and maintained, etc.
I agree with just about everything you’ve said. Communism has had too many failures that have affected too many people, the word is tainted.
To grossly oversimplify it, capitalism is the way of business and trade, while socialism is the way of society and governance. The two things are separate, but the issue we have is that businesses are dictating policy to governments in their exclusive interest, rather than the other way around with governments focusing on the overall good of society.
To be fair, the term “feminist” was highjacked by the radical feminist movement. They very much do not believe in equality, their motto is “kill all men”
I think it’s easy to see why that would turn people away. Hence why I describe myself as an equalizer, not a feminist.
Edit: my statement was very reasonable and I’m willing to engage in discussion about what I have witnessed. If you think I’m pushing an agenda or trying to convince others of anything, feel free to check my post history. However, if you accuse me of pushing an agenda or lying or anything else, you are engaging in false faith and will be blocked. I have a long history of supporting women’s rights, as evidenced by several posts I have made. But I will not stand for being accused of being a right winger.
I think again that was one that was actually hijacked by the right wing. There is far more fearmongering about hardcore feminists than there are hardcore feminists.
While your second statement is true, there are still far too many extremists. I find it very difficult to believe that all the hatred I viewed from feminists on Tumblr and r/FemaleDatingStrategy and many other sources(like my ex who fell into that stuff) were right wingers. Just like one incel is too many(and you don’t hear people claiming incels don’t exist), one person calling for the death or enslavement of half the planet is too many.
Fwiw, I haven’t met a single real person who espouses the viewpoint you described. I’m not saying they don’t exist. I’m saying that until evidence is presented otherwise I doubt there are as many as you think there are.
Assuming you are male, it makes sense that you wouldn’t have met many, as they presumably take steps to avoid interacting with men. The only person like that I’ve talked to IRL would be one of my exes, and her friend group. She went off the rails after we broke up.
This is most likely an effect of recency bias for you which is unfortunate.
Somebody’s mad they can’t get laid whenever they want.
So much misinformation.
comments like this are what’s hijacking it.
Fuckin lmao, you are so full of shit. You know damn well you’ve seen so many Tumblr posts, tshirts, and other bullshit that says the same things. “Kill all men” “All men are evil” “Low value men”
I guarantee you’ve seen all of that, it’s not at all uncommon. You choose to ignore it because you don’t like it. But that’s not how the world works. Other people, surprise surprise, don’t want to be associated with a movement calling for their death.
Enjoy your narrative, but welcome to the real world
I haven’t. And now I believe you even less and think you are intentionally spreading rumors or lies because you have an agenda.
If you don’t want to parent your own son, there is someone out there willing to do it for you. They will not do a good job.
And yet, it’s not like anyone’s child will grow in a bubble decoupled from society; people like Tate can influence even “parented” young men due to the disproportionate amount of reach they have. And it’s not like they would know better, they are kids after all.
.
Underrated comment.
deleted by creator
It did not have 105 when I made that comment. lol
deleted by creator
In all honesty, 3rd wave feminism chased away a lot of male allies. Like a whole lot.
But I don’t think that’s what led to Andrew Tate, that is no failure of feminism.
Andrew Tate is the product of hyper capitalistic individualism being held up in all forms and media and real life as ‘the ideal lifestyle’, a rich, aggressive asshole that has enough clout that most people can’t back them down.
The Tates, Trumps, Elons of the world are having their day because our current generation conflates wealth with competence.
And it’s going to ruin our world.
That said, feminism as it stands now is far more welcoming and inclusive to men than it has been in 25 years and I applaud the change.
I’ll probably be downvoted to hell.
TLDR: If your legs are broken and you treat one and ignore the other you’ll fall eventually. That’s women’s and men’s rights. True equality is unachievable without both being fully recovered.
Full achieving women’s rights while putting minimum input into issues men face. Rarely ends well for either. High suicide rates, homelessness, alcoholism, etc. Those who try to find hope turn to their jobs, religions, and terrible role models.
Both sides have them but most people ignore the truth. People like Andrew Tate become influential because the underlying problem is ignored. More bad role models (BRM) will pop up until you treat the cause instead of the symptoms.
It doesn’t help that theres plenty information including studies that highlight the problem and proves the points made by BRM.
This is reinforced by several instances where someone wants to bring awareness to the Men issues being harassed, facing death threats and etc. This also happened when the first and only DV shelter for was opened. The staff and everyone involved faced a huge backlash that they ended up closing it.
deleted by creator
I know it isn’t much, but you should look up Hasanabi interviewing Tate. He gets clapped and his reactions pierce through that tough guy, strict father model persona of his, and it’s glorious. I was in Romania recently. I should’ve paid him a visit to taunt him.
The less I consider this man the better my general outlook on humanity is, and it’s pretty fuckdamn low these decades so let’s not add more erosion to that tiny bitter flake remaining.
I actually things those people are the last straw of that system. They are the final product of this system and everyone hates it, sooner or later. Your average traditionalist will not recognize himself in Tates lack of manners nor will the liberal capitalist due to his authoritarian tendencies. He is the final product of a terminally ill system and the full displays of all of its flaws. I’m quite hopeful since his downfall because it likely means people will move on from that system
Oh no my friend, it’s going to get much, much worse. There is no ‘he is brutal enough as leader’, there is only 'who can be more brutal and have the power to get away with it.
I wish I could believe in your optimistic view. In my experience the first part is right, but instead of everyone hating it, they will double down because NOW it’s part of their identity and you don’t threaten someone’s identity. People will move mountains to keep their worldview intact.
I actually agree… We simply ignore the needs of men who are suffering. When was the last time you read a story about a male domestic abuse victim who WASN’T laughed at.
Or like how Google has a doodle for international women’s day but never international men’s day. Not to be dismissive or insensitive to women’s issues, but I’ve seen boys and young men talk about how little things like that give them the impression that their thoughts and feelings are not valid.
There are ofc men’s issues still like how the overwhelming majority workplaces deaths are men or how more men die from suicide than women. Men are more likely to be homeless than women etc
The sexes are supposed to compliment one another. Not compete against one another. We can acknowledge that there are issues for both sides while still being sensitive and respectful.
There’s more to then even that. Fight Club predicted it. Mass media pushing this expectation onto young boys, but then as teenager and young adults, they have no outlet for machoism. No wood to split, no animals to kill for food, no fascists to kill(yet). Hollywood pushes the Action Hero, and neglects the Science Hero and the Guile Hero.
BTW, isn’t it sad that the stand-in for toxic masculinity in fiction is still more positive then real life toxic masculinity symbols. But fiction has to be believable.
Toxic masculinity is the reason for that as well. Being the victim is seen as being less masculine, which is seen as worthy of ridicule.
Toxic masculinity hurts everyone.
When men do bad things: “this is toxic masculinity”
When women do bad things: “this is also toxic masculinity”
When men don’t get the support they need. Or are ridiculed for feeling emotions other than anger. And don’t feel they can cry without being judged.
Women can absolutely be abusers. That’s called shitty people and has nothing to do with masculinity, toxic or otherwise.
Most men cry in front of a woman exactly once.
That’s not toxic masculinity. It’s toxic femininity and NO ONE is addressing it in a systemic way.
In feminist theory “masculinity” and “femininity” don’t mean “what men do” and “what women do” but value systems floating through society affecting people.
So in that sense yes woman can exhibit toxic masculinity, if they reinforce those shitty norms. Likewise men can exhibit toxic femininity… say, comparatively harmless example, by discouraging a tomboy from skating.
It’s just one of those gazillions of instances where feminist terminology sucks absolutely donkeyballs because you need to read theory to understand it, which practically noone who calls themselves a feminist actually does, it’s all vibes and signals very little analysis they abuse those terms just like the rest of the population. The rest of the population at least has an excuse, they’re using the dictionary definition.
In this particular instance, “toxic (male) gender norm” would be much better.
It’s just one of those gazillions of instances where feminist terminology sucks absolutely donkeyballs
I mean, to get a little meta here, but if feminist theory essentially says “bad things are (toxic) masculinity, good things are femininity (feminism)” that betrays a deeper problem about the attitudes of feminist theorists, doesn’t it? Sure, it’s a terminology problem, but it’s also a problem that those are the terms.
Calling something women do a “toxic male gender norm” is just as problematic.
Sure, it’s a terminology problem, but it’s also a problem that those are the terms.
I’ve talked to academic feminists about this and their reaction was pretty much “there were good reasons to chose those terms, doing it this way makes sense in the overall theoretical framework, it’s an academic term and not for general use, academic terms always get misunderstood that’s not a thing limited to feminism”. When asked whether, as an academic subject having its own political movement, and being, in the wider sense, sociologists, they shouldn’t at least study the societal implications of their terminology: Crickets.
And I can’t really blame them. The ones I talked with about this definitely have their heart in the right place, acknowledged all the issues but truth be told if one of them goes against those established terms which are oh so useful equivocations for many a catty bitch they’ll get skinned alive by exactly those catty bitches.
It’s called feminist studies - they’ll never say the thing they’re studying is or can be toxic. It’s always the masculine that’s bad, because the very subject name demands it.
I don’t think we ignore the needs of men. They’re just sometimes overshadowed because of other pressing matters like not being able to afford a roof over your head or to feed your family, then whose more likely to get into substance abuse? Men, trying to provide for their families but the debt is mounting and school is basically unachievable. Work wages are stagnating inflation is rising because the corpos have us all by the balls. Is there a culture that tries to pigeonhole men to bottle up their emotions in America? Absolutely. I just think the greater fight is improving these lychpins of society, and we can do that and also address men’s problems, but in a lot of ways, aren’t women’s lack of equality a big part of men’s problems in the first place? If women were paid equally and treated equally by men and other women, and society as a whole, they could take care of themselves better, provide more for their families, not feel like they have to choose between a family and a career, etc etc etc. All of it is inter-related dammit. I do get what the person in the original article is trying to say. I just don’t think that they did a particularly good job of expressing it in a relatable way.
People hyperfocus on the 1% of crazy feminists instead of the other 99% who are actually normal and reasonable. Sadly that 1% are doing more harm to the public image of feminism than good.
We live in an age of twitter screenshot outrage and that pathetically emboldens some peoples beliefs so the root cause really is social media. Nothing more nothing less.
The only time I ever hear about that 1% is from the conservative propaganda machine, or MSM rebuttal. They hold zero power outside of the conservative cinematic universe.
At this point I consider it nothing more than manufactured outrage.
deleted by creator
every time I open xitter
Well there’s your problem right there
deleted by creator
Their enemies are shadows on the wall, shadows of their own minds.
I mean there’s TERFs, they speak for feminism, no?
People keep forgetting that until recently, TERF used to be the default position of feminism
When recently? Because if you mean 30 years ago, yeah. But by the 00s it wasn’t anymore. And before the 80s it wasn’t yet. It was a powerful force in the second wave.
YouTube Algorithms, facebook Algorithms, etc. make them all publishers responsible for their content.
the algorithms just rewards “shocking” content; it generates conversation.
I forget who I heard it from, but some bigger YouTuber mentioned that when talking to someone at YouTube about “the algorithm” and the person who worked at YouTube suggested rather than always thinking about it being the algorithm that drives what’s popular, that it’s the users who engage with that content. In the “line goes up” capitalist mindset, the algorithms at these companies are really just designed around engagement, and keeping people hooked. The “algorithm” is just what it thinks the audience wants.
And while I think a lot of us would like to think better of ourselves, I think we all have a strong tendency to engage with ragebait, and “shocking” content. Which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad trait in a pre-internet world. But in the world where the shareholders always need the line to go up infinitely, all of our media gets filled with the garbage that makes the line go up the most.
In the short term, we can all try more to engage less with the kind of content, showing the algorithms that we don’t actually want that content.
In the long term, we should probably de-couple our media from the infinite-growth investor-first capitalism that has formerly-respected publications writing articles about what 5 random people said on Twitter that they can ragebait people into engaging with.
Yes people like stuff that’s not good for them, violence focused “journalistic” shows were all the rage during the early millenium since they did get a big viewership, but nowadays they are mostly over with only a few left, we should demand change from those that have the power to do it.
I also blame CBC and other supposedly legit sources for giving this fuck air time and even asking him about the Israel/Palestine war as if his opinion matters.
Also so called journalists like this who remove all responsibility from Tate for being a rapist piece of shit
When did the CBC give this guy air time? I looked for it, and all I found are articles critical of him by the CBC.
Perhaps the user meant BBC. Someone from there did an interview
I feel like a lot of people confuse feminism for straight up misandry. #killallmen? #maletears? These were started by so called “feminists” but this is the definition of misandry.
And people wonder why young men don’t like feminism when this might have been their only exposure to it.
George Orwell, before he wrote 1984, wrote a treatise on the weaponiziation of language. It seems like he was right to warn people.
To clarify my post: the thought of what the word “feminism” or “feminist”, etc could be twisted into, reminded me of Orwell’s treatise, and how someone could easily get it in their heads that feminists have an overarching agenda to feminize everyone,. I’d imagine this is especially true for young boys,/menn. The anti-trans and anti gay movement or has pretty much always been framed that way, like the existence of them is going to affect Cis people or some other nonsense that is most assuredly a talking point of the alt right and GOP,. This becomes even easier to achieve if bad actors are being depiberately obtuse to manipulate a populace of young and misguided men, who’ve been left by the wayside by earlier generations who have regressive, “fuck you, I’ve got mine” attitudes.
And how much of that is actually created to stoke anti-feminist attitudes?
Almost none of it is created to stoke anti-feminist attitudes, but it is certainly spread to do so.
There was this great tumblr post a couple years ago that I can’t seem to find anymore about how when feminists spread phrases like ‘all men are trash’, even if in context it doesn’t seem offensive or bigoted, people who dislike feminism will spread it to people offended by it without the additional context and say “look, see! Feminists hate all men! They hate you! Why would you as a man want to help people who hate you unconditionally?!”, and unfortunately the people most vulnerable to that type of manipulation are teenage boys, who aren’t exactly likely to seek out the context that’s been removed
The problem is that people aren’t familiar with what feminism actually is, so that leaves room for that kind of nuttery to get pushed.
There was a video awhile back of a “feminist” combating the practice of “manspreading” on trains by dumping water mixed with bleach onto men’s crotches. Outage naturally ensued, but later it was revealed to be a Russian psyop.
The group’s website claimed the video was designed to provoke a backlash against feminism and further social division in Western countries.
So, yeah, some of this stuff is manufactured to produce rage and sow division. How much? Who knows?
Of course, we both understand how “all men are trash” could be said without bigotry within the right context, but for everyone else that doesn’t understand, would someone mind explaining or clarifying?
Gladly! I’ll use an example that I myself witnessed (and helped pull me out of the alt right pipeline, funnily enough) but unfortunately no longer have the link to corroborate my story, as it was deleted by the original post author some time afterwards, I’ll also include a timeline of how it gets into the right wing circles and gets spread around, bolded part for those who just want to know the context:
A young feminist makes a post on a personal blog that includes the text “all men are trash” as part of a larger critique on masculine culture and how it negatively everyone, including men. IIRC it was something like “all men are trash, they do bad things [other examples, leading paragraph type stuff]” and then continues in the next couple of lines “That’s what men are supposed to be and are lead to be under a patriarchy, but these values are harmful to everyone, them included, that’s why the men who don’t end up like this, and end up kind and nice, are demonized by those men who did end up evil and cruel, they disprove the need for a patriarchy, [the rest of the article]” (again, this is just what I remember, it may not be fully correct)
Effectively, the author was pointing out that a patriarchal masculine society demonizes men who are kind and help others, while rewarding men who are ruthless and cruel, with the statement “all men are trash” probably being used as an inflammatory statement to make the reader keep reading.*
At some point in the following year, someone in the alt right circle of twitter picks up on this blog and screenshots the paragraph with “all men are trash” and some other minor details that don’t include the part about how the feminist actually critiques the negative influences on men
This screenshot then spreads to right wing indoctrinators, who happily run with it and use to to paint a picture of how feminists hate all men and think they are trash, so as a man you shouldn’t be a feminist, and should hate feminists because they hate you!
Fringe right wing content creators see the indoctrinators takes on this and edit it together with similar examples, some of which are genuine ‘hate all men’ people, others are also taken out of context.
Right wing & right wing adjacent content creators release videos using the edited content to make videos with titles like “FEMINISTS think ALL MEN are trash?!”, where it eventually reaches me,
I find the original blog in order to try to understand why they could possibly think I’m trash and read the rest of the article, I question why the content creator left this out and then start questioning what else they lied to me about, I start watching left wing content creators for alternate perspectives and end up the way I am now: hard core left wing gay guy who cringes at the fact I was ever even right wing adjacent
Ah, ok, I was having a hard time imagining how it could be just taken out of context without just being entirely misquoted. I was making the mistake of trying to imagine the author saying that themselves rather than saying it as a hypothetical quote to then criticize. And perhaps it’s even possible the other way, too.
I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. At times, I haven’t been too sure what any given “ism” most generally means when different people might misunderstand or even deliberately skew the meaning, and, at least for me, this helped me see a really good example of how that’s done in the context of misrepresenting feminism, in particular. Even without referencing an original source, it’s helpful to see examples to learn how to recognize that when it does happen.
However much is intentionally inflammatory controlled opposition, it will never catch up to the work of people like Dworkin, Solanas, or more recently Julie Bindel.
There are plenty of established, respected feminists, who you could never in a million years claim are a psyop, whose work is taught in academia on a regular basis and whose contents would immediately get me banned off of most social media platforms if I were to swap the genders they’re talking about and post an excerpt.
And this is just the theory aspect.
Let’s not forget the revolutionary additions to the legislative side of things like the primary caregiver standard, or the Duluth model for domestic violence.
There is a reason “feminism” is not called “egalitarianism”.
Yes more modern waves have put some token effort into at least presenting a path for men to improve their lot in society, but let’s be real, conservatives do that for women too, it’s hardly in good faith and it’s fundamentally useless because the focus of the ideology isn’t to improve the lot of everyone.
It can’t be, because it starts from the presupposition that men’s lot is the best lot, and women’s needs to catch up to men’s.
Even when it nominally factors in facts like men being expected to put themselves in harm’s way and die for society it also handily blames men for making the choices that, for instance, lead to war, and it implies that therefore it’s not as important because the fact that the person sitting at a desk sending men to get shot on the front lines also happens to have a penis somehow makes it less problematic.
So yeah, there’s plenty to criticise.
Feminism has some very valid complaints, hell, a lot even, but there’s also a shitton of reasons why your average man can look at your typical feminist and ask himself “why the fuck would I ever side with you?”
The mis-characterization of feminists into “feminazis” started with Anita Saarkesian. I remember gamers coming after her hard during gamergate for literally no reason at all. If you go back and watch old Feminist Frequency episodes she wasnt saying anything insane at all. They were all solidly rational observations about the way women were portrayed in games.
The term feminazi began long before gamergate and the movement was a genuine protest against the relationship between game studios and the people pretending to be journalists and honest reviewers.
I watched as the incels and right wing nut jobs rolled in and made it about who Zoe Quinn was fucking. What people don’t remember is that she was a narcissistic sociopath who ruined anyone who crossed her and got actual feminists chased off the internet. Reframing the debate to be about slut shaming allowed the incels and the faux feminists to hijack any meaningful dialogue and all the reasonable people distanced themselves from the issue.
Oh no some people were mean on the internet, better throw out all of feminism!
As we all know what small numbers of people on twitter say defines entire groups, that’s how we know all gamers are nazis…
I think slacktivist corporate feminism is an easy punching bag which makes it an easy case to dismiss the message.
That and with internet allowing every village idiot a voice, it is very easy for someone to say something incredibly batshit insane which becomes a punching bag for the rest of the people.
I get the basic idea of “slacktivist corporate feminism”, but can you give me some specific examples as I’m very interested in this idea.
Not OP, but:
Susan G. Komen pink on everything once a year, #girlboss, 9000 stock photos of women being women at business, bragging about a high percent of the company being women while all of the top 10% earners are men, making a Big Deal about international women’s day on social media while quietly fucking with insurance to drive up the cost of women’s healthcare, etc. etc.
A big problem - for ages now - is, that young men just don’t have fathers. There’s a male around, often, but these are rarely “fathers” that convey a whole picture of a male person. I grew up without one, and I can tell you, how confusing that can be. You attach yourself very easily to ideas other male persons have. Thinking for yourself is another skill that’s kinda rare, not only today, it was at any time. It’s hard to navigate these years.
I grew up without a dad and prefer it to having a shitty dad, which is what most people have.
Most people have shit dads? Really?
I have doubts, but I’m sorry you feel that way.
Absolutely. A good father is hard to come by.
A lot of them end up clipping the wings (and foreskins) of their children because their wings (and foreskins) were clipped, too.
These kids then go through life thinking that’s how they should treat others if they love them. It creates a lot of confusion that could be assuaged by acknowledging most fathers are shit.
Generational trauma is a motherfucker and until enough people break the cycle we’re stuck on this rollercoaster of periodic facism.
They also are looking for a place to belong. Incels need love too
This is the reason for a very brief period of time, in my late 20s, I almost fell for Jordan Peterson’s schlock. In my opinion he’s the more dangerous one. I am a pretty level headed person and was then, but because of my upbringing I was vulnerable. Tate can suck eggs in hell though.
I’ve always felt like these things are cyclical in a way - just in that people are constantly rebelling against the last generation.
When I went to high school in the early 2010s there was this huge movement of like… positivity and sunshine and wellness and feminism and good times for all. Bob Ross was on everyone’s mind and Pharrell’s “Happy” blasted on the stereo, people wore really bright and mismatched and often gaudy outfits.
This was seemingly “in response” to that mid 2000s emo/grunge/depressed aesthetic which was very dark and moody. And now, in response to that 2010s positivity we seem to get this really jaded, “actually, feminism sucks and becoming a ‘trad catholic’ is chic” movement.
It’s annoying, and I’m sure we’ll see an opposite shift again in 5 years.
I’ve always felt like these things are cyclical in a way - just in that people are constantly rebelling against the last generation.
That implies that it’s somehow a natural cycle, but this is dangerous because it ignores and “Laissez-faire” the fascist propaganda that is blasted deliberately into our global society. It started with fox news and talk radio where funding from fascists helped spread “misinformation” and now continues on social media, where the same funding takes place. The strategy behind this funding is that fascism works when socio-economic circumstances get worse and worse, and allow further exploitation.
Additionally, controversial viewpoints are rewarded by more engagement and clicks - and so become part of the strategy of AI algorithms.
You should absolutely not assume it gets better on it’s own, without enough people pushing back against it and without the rules of how the system is allowed to work being changed. Gen Z is just as susceptible to propaganda as Boomers.
Yeah, but I think a lot of it is just high schoolers trying to be different than the last generation. I don’t think that Fox News was in charge of people getting really into Bob Ross 10 years ago.
weird cause I got really depressed around that time because I was an unemployable highschool dropout during a recession so I fucking hated that happy song.
Same bro. I thought about suicide very often and leaned heavily into substance abuse. What a fun time.
I respect your thoughts on this as they’re very fleshed out and sound like something that could be accurate, but the big problem i see is that your experiences in high-school are extremely biased by your age and limited experience with the wider world at the time. I’m not singling you out btw, because my saying this is based on my own self-reflection of earlier years. Before you are fully integrated into society and also, your frontal lobe is literally still developing until you’re in your mid twenties, it is hard to assess the state of things imo. There is definitely a capitalist/media centered cultural zeitgeist that pervades everything, and I’m sure has profound effects, I just can’t buy being able to fully grasp it in highschool or earlier. I look forward to your reply.
I hear you, I just want to reiterate that the discussion at hand (from the OP down) is specifically talking about that specific high school age bracket, which is why I’m invoking it so much. Culture is obviously going to be different between age groups, and a lot of that difference is imo a direct “opposition” of that previous group.
Just very anecdotally, I remember seeing a goofy little post, very clearly made by a gen-z individual, stereotyping millennials as this kind of chronically depressed, down on themselves type. Which I thought was kind of funny. Even something like the “trend” of “being depressed” the next generation will recognize and (consciously or subconsciously) change their own behavior based on it.
I don’t think there’s too much to say. I am largely just spitballing on a pattern I’ve noticed at least with fashion and “aesthetics” in that age group over time.
Appreciate the conversation as well. I’m new on the site and it really is like night and day compared to trying to have a polite little conversation on Reddit.
Jeez, you must have gone to high school in a rich neighborhood
For most people 2009-2015 or so was an impoverished hellhole. Everyone was recovering from the great recession. Societal outlook was fucking BLEAK.
I did not. You can have poor economic conditions but still a cultural zeitgeist focused more on positivity, inclusion, and “wellness” than usual
Not saying it’s impossible, but I’ve never seen it
How many schools did you sample to come to this conclusion?
- My family moved around a lot when I was in high school. Between me and my brother, 5 different high schools.
7 if you count a couple of high schools I “toured” but never went to. That was just one day at each though.
3 different states, but all in poor Southern areas.
If it helps you, imagine the following - as I believe your personal experience may be clouding things slightly .
Directly prior to the very “Emo / goth / punk / skinny jeans” time of around 2004-2010 was the early 00s. Now, in some ways the early 00s were very bleak. It was post 9/11, the economy did not like the possibility of a major war, and simply put many people genuinely thought it was some end of an empire time where further attacks on US soil might become common. At the same time, it was still the era of boy bands, brightly colored and flashy technology and clothing, blonde hair, and going to the mall + beach with your friends. Bad things were occurring, but the cultural zeitgeist for that age demographic was still in a “bright and positive” phase
I really think that tate is an imbecil, and his fanbase are just being manipulated.
It is sad to see that boys think that this idiot is someone who deserve attention.
They equate money with competence ignoring the fact that a lot of his money was illegally made.
Money == sex.
As long as women keep throwing themselves at people like Andrew Tate, men are going to look up to him.
He’s a human trafficker and a rapist. The women in his videos don’t have a choice but to do what he says.
You’re not wrong. But it shifts the blame to women when the onus should be on men to to be responsible.
It’s not about being “responsible.” Andrew Tate isn’t “responsible” and women throw themselves at him.
It’s about money. Andrew Tate has a lot of it, so he gets a lot of sex.
It’s what encourages men to be as shitty as possible in order to make as much money as possible.
I don’t feel like explaining. It’s capitalism. Patriarchy serves capitalism.
Umm, then why do women prefer to have sex with wealthy men over regular ones?
How Patriarchy and Capitalism Combine to Aggravate the Oppression of Women. If people had the time to read more, a lot of these problems would go away.
Is it really that hard not to be a fucking cunt?
For a teenager, yes. That’s why this is important.
If men and boys are finding current models of masculinity to be difficult - which is what Tate et al prey on - perhaps they have more in common with feminists. The patriarchy harms everyone.
I think the difficulty stems from the growing disparity in wealth. As it continues to grow, fewer women are available for most men. They just gravitate towards the top.
It’s why we have people like Andrew Tate having sex with literally thousands of women while regular men kill themselves.
In that respect (“this is a problem”) yes, we have commonality with feminists.
But then, feminists will say “you men need to sort your own shit out”, which is not at all helpful. We need help. And if you’re refusing to help us, while also ridiculing us for needing help, well is it any wonder men don’t identify as feminists?
Yeah
There’s sill a ton of ‘rugged individualism’ propaganda to dismantle before they are comfortable enough with their masculinity to admit that everyone is at least a little bit gay. I mean I personally know of at least two redneck ‘good ol boys’ that ended their own life than face the fact that sometimes boys can be cute too.
And that’s not even mentioning the fact that some states still accept the ‘gay panic’ defense.
Hypermasculinity has never been a natural aspect of human nature but to the patriarchy it is the ideal man. To become that you must mutilate yourself in a way that erodes empathy and trust in others.
And many, many men have actively taken that psychic self-mutilation. So many to the point that they are proud of their bleeding wounds.
The patriarchy harms everyone.
A patriarchy has been around for as long as civilization has, and its most harmful effects have clearly diminished over the past 100 years. This does not explain the issues that young people deal with that their parents and grandparents didn’t.
What does this have to do with anything?
