The Manhood Trap

[Colonel Sanders]

From Epstein’s Island to Musk’s Baby Farm — How the Right Redefined Masculinity as Control, by Thom Hartmann.

Underneath the memes, podcasts, and tradwife fantasies lies a dangerous agenda: train young men to reject equality, fear women’s power, and embrace authoritarianism disguised as masculinity . . .


Rape culture isn’t just at the top; it’s everywhere, especially in the digital spaces young men inhabit.


This isn’t just a parental issue, it’s a cultural emergency. This content is shaping how an entire generation understands sex, power, and consent.

And Trump’s “best friend” Epstein was an avatar of that twisted worldview.


. . .


White women are expected to go “back to the kitchen and bedroom,” producing more white babies in a panic about the “browning” of America.


This fixation on race and reproduction mirrors the same “Great Replacement Theory” rhetoric promoted on Fox “News” and other rightwing outlets that fed the Charlottesville rally and inspired mass murderers in Las Vegas, Buffalo, and El Paso.


From Trump saying, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” to telling Esquire Magazine that “arm candy” is essential for a successful businessman (“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”) to sarcastically calling Kamala Harris “a beautiful woman,” our president has long made clear his thoughts on the role of women. . . .

Interesting article. I see the Democrats are determined to lose even more support from young men going forward. What are they shooting for the next election? 10%? Someone needs to take that shovel away...

And what's the status on the $20 million Democrats are spending to see what makes men tick? Have they come to any conclusions so far? Maybe they could hire Jane Goodall?

The meaning of this post eludes me. Just what is it you think Democrats should be doing?

What they shouldn't be doing is driving away heterosexual young men, but they have been quite successful at doing it.

I'm gonna be 56 next months, so I can let all this bullshit hostility towards "heteronormative" males slide off my back. However, if I was a young man, I'd run from the Democrats and the radical morons running the party.

It's shallow to say, but one of the main things that caused me to reject the GOP altogether was the controversy over Bill getting a blowjob. I was around 23 or 24 at the time. If I were that same age and hearing liberals say the shit they say now, fuck them, I'd be right out.

I like to have sex with women. I really liked the variety and amount of women I slept with, and I have zero regrets; it was awesome. If someone doesn't like it, they can, well, blow me.

23 year old me would've been out campaigning for the GOP because they'd accept me.

I do not believe that it is useful to talk about what someone shouldn't be doing, unless one has an alternative suggestion. As far as I know, the radical morons running the Democratic Party are not in fact opposed to heterosexuality in any way, so what is it you want them to do exactly?

It is useful to talk about they shouldn't be doing because it's what's driving so many people away from the party, particularly men. Trump gained in nearly every single demographic back in November and that may have very well killed democracy in this country. The only party that has any hope of saving it is the Democratic party.

However, what they should do is eschew the fringe elements who unfortunately seem to have the loudest voices. I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one. One possible solution is that the Dems develop the courage to say they don't support those attacks rather than coddle the radicals.

Universities are another problem, but I have no solutions for that... maybe discrimination lawsuits, but that gets into some potentially ugly territory that I'm not comfortable with.

 

[Toni]

From Epstein’s Island to Musk’s Baby Farm — How the Right Redefined Masculinity as Control, by Thom Hartmann.

Underneath the memes, podcasts, and tradwife fantasies lies a dangerous agenda: train young men to reject equality, fear women’s power, and embrace authoritarianism disguised as masculinity . . .


Rape culture isn’t just at the top; it’s everywhere, especially in the digital spaces young men inhabit.


This isn’t just a parental issue, it’s a cultural emergency. This content is shaping how an entire generation understands sex, power, and consent.

And Trump’s “best friend” Epstein was an avatar of that twisted worldview.


. . .


White women are expected to go “back to the kitchen and bedroom,” producing more white babies in a panic about the “browning” of America.


This fixation on race and reproduction mirrors the same “Great Replacement Theory” rhetoric promoted on Fox “News” and other rightwing outlets that fed the Charlottesville rally and inspired mass murderers in Las Vegas, Buffalo, and El Paso.


From Trump saying, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” to telling Esquire Magazine that “arm candy” is essential for a successful businessman (“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”) to sarcastically calling Kamala Harris “a beautiful woman,” our president has long made clear his thoughts on the role of women. . . .

Interesting article. I see the Democrats are determined to lose even more support from young men going forward. What are they shooting for the next election? 10%? Someone needs to take that shovel away...

And what's the status on the $20 million Democrats are spending to see what makes men tick? Have they come to any conclusions so far? Maybe they could hire Jane Goodall?

The meaning of this post eludes me. Just what is it you think Democrats should be doing?

What they shouldn't be doing is driving away heterosexual young men, but they have been quite successful at doing it.

I'm gonna be 56 next months, so I can let all this bullshit hostility towards "heteronormative" males slide off my back. However, if I was a young man, I'd run from the Democrats and the radical morons running the party.

It's shallow to say, but one of the main things that caused me to reject the GOP altogether was the controversy over Bill getting a blowjob. I was around 23 or 24 at the time. If I were that same age and hearing liberals say the shit they say now, fuck them, I'd be right out.

I like to have sex with women. I really liked the variety and amount of women I slept with, and I have zero regrets; it was awesome. If someone doesn't like it, they can, well, blow me.

23 year old me would've been out campaigning for the GOP because they'd accept me.

I do not believe that it is useful to talk about what someone shouldn't be doing, unless one has an alternative suggestion. As far as I know, the radical morons running the Democratic Party are not in fact opposed to heterosexuality in any way, so what is it you want them to do exactly?

It is useful to talk about they shouldn't be doing because it's what's driving so many people away from the party, particularly men. Trump gained in nearly every single demographic back in November and that may have very well killed democracy in this country. The only party that has any hope of saving it is the Democratic party.

However, what they should do is eschew the fringe elements who unfortunately seem to have the loudest voices. I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one. One possible solution is that the Dems develop the courage to say they don't support those attacks rather than coddle the radicals.

Universities are another problem, but I have no solutions for that... maybe discrimination lawsuits, but that gets into some potentially ugly territory that I'm not comfortable with.

Do you think universities are discriminating against males?

 

[Politesse]

However, what they should do is eschew the fringe elements who unfortunately seem to have the loudest voices. I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane

What do you mean by "eschew", exactly? What specific steps should they take to silence their poltical opponents? No one asked the DNC leadership for permission before taking offense at Mrs. Rowling's comments, so it would have to be reactive, not peoactive. Do you want Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to tweet public support for JK Rowling?

 

[Politesse]

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one.

The Democratic party has next to no control over what happens on "the left on social media". Are you advocating for them to take on a more authoritarian role in what online leftists are allowed to post?

 

[James Brown]

I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

That's how it started, yes, in 2018. Your statement implies that was all she did--one accidental like on a Tweet--but that's not the case.

 Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people

 

[RVonse]

Nor as AI advances will men be useful (more than women) for inventing any more technology.

AI is a bullshit generator, so in that regard I guess it could supplant men; But men have never been "useful (more than women) for inventing any more technology".

Just ask Ada Lovelace*.

When all of the assumptions you bring to your analysis are wrong, it is a really bad idea to assume that your conclusions are of any value whatsoever.







* Well, obviously you can't because she died in 1852; But presumably you feel that 1852 was before the time when men ceased to be useful (more than women). I am guessing you would have assumed that men were still useful (more than women) as recently as 1952.

I’m guessing he thought men were more useful as recently as 2020. I don’t mean it as a slam. Many men that I know think of men as being more useful: physically stronger, better at defending women and children, smarter math and science, which, btw, is all that actually counts. [/Fe]. Largely because women’s contributions in fields of mathematics and science have mostly been ignored, forgotten or misattributed to men. Women have largely been invisible in those field and indeed in music, art, history, engineering, sociology and psychology and of course literature. They participated and contributed, yes. But were most often acknowledged. Less true starting in the mid-20th century but still true.

My observation had little to do with the ability of women (vs men) but everything to do with the average desire and motivation of women (vs men). Men have been primarily the producers of technology and material conveniences because that's been their focus of desire. And not just technology per say but actual infrastructure creation like making oil, steel, and hauling trash. Those physical jobs where you see the worker sweating profusely and getting all mucked up with shit....those are the jobs that men will and can do but women don't.

But like I already said, even that amount of male usefulness is going be done by the robots in the near future anyway. Sadly and eventually both men and women are going to have little usefulness for each other or the rest of this world after the hyper deployment of AI and robots.

 

[lostone]

Nor as AI advances will men be useful (more than women) for inventing any more technology.

AI is a bullshit generator, so in that regard I guess it could supplant men; But men have never been "useful (more than women) for inventing any more technology".

Just ask Ada Lovelace*.

When all of the assumptions you bring to your analysis are wrong, it is a really bad idea to assume that your conclusions are of any value whatsoever.







* Well, obviously you can't because she died in 1852; But presumably you feel that 1852 was before the time when men ceased to be useful (more than women). I am guessing you would have assumed that men were still useful (more than women) as recently as 1952.

I’m guessing he thought men were more useful as recently as 2020. I don’t mean it as a slam. Many men that I know think of men as being more useful: physically stronger, better at defending women and children, smarter math and science, which, btw, is all that actually counts. [/Fe]. Largely because women’s contributions in fields of mathematics and science have mostly been ignored, forgotten or misattributed to men. Women have largely been invisible in those field and indeed in music, art, history, engineering, sociology and psychology and of course literature. They participated and contributed, yes. But were most often acknowledged. Less true starting in the mid-20th century but still true.

My observation had little to do with the ability of women (vs men) but everything to do with the average desire and motivation of women (vs men). Men have been primarily the producers of technology and material conveniences because that's been their focus of desire. And not just technology per say but actual infrastructure creation like making oil, steel, and hauling trash. Those physical jobs where you see the worker sweating profusely and getting all mucked up with shit....those are the jobs that men will and can do but women don't.

But like I already said, even that amount of male usefulness is going be done by the robots in the near future anyway. Sadly and eventually both men and women are going to have little usefulness for each other or the rest of this world after the hyper deployment of AI and robots.

How many people will still have jobs once AI is fully developed? The corporate upper management may have eliminated all need for most of us.

 

[bilby]

How many people will still have jobs once AI is fully developed?

About the same as before.

Either "AI" will have been ditched like every other tech fad; Or they will all have jobs correcting its errors.

 

[lostone]

How many people will still have jobs once AI is fully developed?

About the same as before.

Either "AI" will have been ditched like every other tech fad; Or they will all have jobs correcting its errors.

Like the jobs eliminated by self-checkout lines in grocery stores?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

From Epstein’s Island to Musk’s Baby Farm — How the Right Redefined Masculinity as Control, by Thom Hartmann.

Underneath the memes, podcasts, and tradwife fantasies lies a dangerous agenda: train young men to reject equality, fear women’s power, and embrace authoritarianism disguised as masculinity . . .


Rape culture isn’t just at the top; it’s everywhere, especially in the digital spaces young men inhabit.


This isn’t just a parental issue, it’s a cultural emergency. This content is shaping how an entire generation understands sex, power, and consent.

And Trump’s “best friend” Epstein was an avatar of that twisted worldview.


. . .


White women are expected to go “back to the kitchen and bedroom,” producing more white babies in a panic about the “browning” of America.


This fixation on race and reproduction mirrors the same “Great Replacement Theory” rhetoric promoted on Fox “News” and other rightwing outlets that fed the Charlottesville rally and inspired mass murderers in Las Vegas, Buffalo, and El Paso.


From Trump saying, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” to telling Esquire Magazine that “arm candy” is essential for a successful businessman (“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”) to sarcastically calling Kamala Harris “a beautiful woman,” our president has long made clear his thoughts on the role of women. . . .

Interesting article. I see the Democrats are determined to lose even more support from young men going forward. What are they shooting for the next election? 10%? Someone needs to take that shovel away...

And what's the status on the $20 million Democrats are spending to see what makes men tick? Have they come to any conclusions so far? Maybe they could hire Jane Goodall?

The meaning of this post eludes me. Just what is it you think Democrats should be doing?

What they shouldn't be doing is driving away heterosexual young men, but they have been quite successful at doing it.

I'm gonna be 56 next months, so I can let all this bullshit hostility towards "heteronormative" males slide off my back. However, if I was a young man, I'd run from the Democrats and the radical morons running the party.

It's shallow to say, but one of the main things that caused me to reject the GOP altogether was the controversy over Bill getting a blowjob. I was around 23 or 24 at the time. If I were that same age and hearing liberals say the shit they say now, fuck them, I'd be right out.

I like to have sex with women. I really liked the variety and amount of women I slept with, and I have zero regrets; it was awesome. If someone doesn't like it, they can, well, blow me.

23 year old me would've been out campaigning for the GOP because they'd accept me.

I do not believe that it is useful to talk about what someone shouldn't be doing, unless one has an alternative suggestion. As far as I know, the radical morons running the Democratic Party are not in fact opposed to heterosexuality in any way, so what is it you want them to do exactly?

It is useful to talk about they shouldn't be doing because it's what's driving so many people away from the party, particularly men. Trump gained in nearly every single demographic back in November and that may have very well killed democracy in this country. The only party that has any hope of saving it is the Democratic party.

However, what they should do is eschew the fringe elements who unfortunately seem to have the loudest voices. I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one. One possible solution is that the Dems develop the courage to say they don't support those attacks rather than coddle the radicals.

Universities are another problem, but I have no solutions for that... maybe discrimination lawsuits, but that gets into some potentially ugly territory that I'm not comfortable with.

Do you think universities are discriminating against males?

Yes. They would never admit it, but their humanities and social "science" curricula betray them. Alienation of white males through admissions processes, faculty hirings, and the usually wrong misconception that they're all somehow privileged is a very real problem.

As I've told you before, I was in my early 40s when I went back to college and how I came out of undergrad with a new understanding of what conservatives were on about with respect to this issue. It certainly wasn't enough to cause me to vote GOP, but I understand very well how a young man could be so influenced.

What should the Dems do about this overall? Make a concerted effort to get these people back by welcoming them back. Make it clear that there's been a discriminatory streak running through the party that will no longer be tolerated. Have representatives go tell universities that they're harming actual progress by attacking young white men. The specifics something for the Dems to figure out, not for some guy on the internet. But don't worry, the Dems won't do anything like that.

If I could actually get a seat at the table, I'd be happy to read them the riot act, but neither me nor anyone like me will never get a seat sat at that table.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one.

The Democratic party has next to no control over what happens on "the left on social media". Are you advocating for them to take on a more authoritarian role in what online leftists are allowed to post?

If they have no control over anything, then what the hell good are they???

"Authoritarian."

Sure, whatever. Excising the rot that's aided actual authoritarians to power is "authoritarian."

Publicly and vocally reject the radicals and make it clear they're being rejected.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

That's how it started, yes, in 2018. Your statement implies that was all she did--one accidental like on a Tweet--but that's not the case.

 Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people

I read the article you linked to. I tried to copy and paste, but it just pasted a bunch of code.

Anyway, that Wiki article is nowhere near as damning as you seem to think it is. She expressed some views, none of which any reasonable person would take as discriminatory and she was roasted for that. It's the same shit that people are tired of rolling their eyes at. If you're not on board with every single opinion and every single goddamn tedious phrase, then you're an oppressor.

Thankfully for Rowling, she has Fuck You money.

Oh, and the dustup with Dave Chapelle? Those people can go jump off the highest bridge they can find. The man who took a trans comedian on the road with him is a transphobe? On what planet in what galaxy and in what universe does that make a lick of sense to the sane?

But whatever. It's not gonna hurt me. That's what the fringe elements that have been incorporated into the Democratic party utterly fail to understand. Aggravate enough people and they won't show up to vote for you.

I'll never vote for a Republican for any reason, but at the same time, I won't vote for Democrat either because they don't represent me. The difference is that the Dems can win back my vote and the millions of other disaffected voters. Whether they will or not is up to them. I'm confident they'll continue to lose. Hell, they lost to an orange asshole C grade celebrity----twice.

 

[Toni]

From Epstein’s Island to Musk’s Baby Farm — How the Right Redefined Masculinity as Control, by Thom Hartmann.

Underneath the memes, podcasts, and tradwife fantasies lies a dangerous agenda: train young men to reject equality, fear women’s power, and embrace authoritarianism disguised as masculinity . . .


Rape culture isn’t just at the top; it’s everywhere, especially in the digital spaces young men inhabit.


This isn’t just a parental issue, it’s a cultural emergency. This content is shaping how an entire generation understands sex, power, and consent.

And Trump’s “best friend” Epstein was an avatar of that twisted worldview.


. . .


White women are expected to go “back to the kitchen and bedroom,” producing more white babies in a panic about the “browning” of America.


This fixation on race and reproduction mirrors the same “Great Replacement Theory” rhetoric promoted on Fox “News” and other rightwing outlets that fed the Charlottesville rally and inspired mass murderers in Las Vegas, Buffalo, and El Paso.


From Trump saying, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” to telling Esquire Magazine that “arm candy” is essential for a successful businessman (“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”) to sarcastically calling Kamala Harris “a beautiful woman,” our president has long made clear his thoughts on the role of women. . . .

Interesting article. I see the Democrats are determined to lose even more support from young men going forward. What are they shooting for the next election? 10%? Someone needs to take that shovel away...

And what's the status on the $20 million Democrats are spending to see what makes men tick? Have they come to any conclusions so far? Maybe they could hire Jane Goodall?

The meaning of this post eludes me. Just what is it you think Democrats should be doing?

What they shouldn't be doing is driving away heterosexual young men, but they have been quite successful at doing it.

I'm gonna be 56 next months, so I can let all this bullshit hostility towards "heteronormative" males slide off my back. However, if I was a young man, I'd run from the Democrats and the radical morons running the party.

It's shallow to say, but one of the main things that caused me to reject the GOP altogether was the controversy over Bill getting a blowjob. I was around 23 or 24 at the time. If I were that same age and hearing liberals say the shit they say now, fuck them, I'd be right out.

I like to have sex with women. I really liked the variety and amount of women I slept with, and I have zero regrets; it was awesome. If someone doesn't like it, they can, well, blow me.

23 year old me would've been out campaigning for the GOP because they'd accept me.

I do not believe that it is useful to talk about what someone shouldn't be doing, unless one has an alternative suggestion. As far as I know, the radical morons running the Democratic Party are not in fact opposed to heterosexuality in any way, so what is it you want them to do exactly?

It is useful to talk about they shouldn't be doing because it's what's driving so many people away from the party, particularly men. Trump gained in nearly every single demographic back in November and that may have very well killed democracy in this country. The only party that has any hope of saving it is the Democratic party.

However, what they should do is eschew the fringe elements who unfortunately seem to have the loudest voices. I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one. One possible solution is that the Dems develop the courage to say they don't support those attacks rather than coddle the radicals.

Universities are another problem, but I have no solutions for that... maybe discrimination lawsuits, but that gets into some potentially ugly territory that I'm not comfortable with.

Do you think universities are discriminating against males?

Yes. They would never admit it, but their humanities and social "science" curricula betray them. Alienation of white males through admissions processes, faculty hirings, and the usually wrong misconception that they're all somehow privileged is a very real problem.

As I've told you before, I was in my early 40s when I went back to college and how I came out of undergrad with a new understanding of what conservatives were on about with respect to this issue. It certainly wasn't enough to cause me to vote GOP, but I understand very well how a young man could be so influenced.

What should the Dems do about this overall? Make a concerted effort to get these people back by welcoming them back. Make it clear that there's been a discriminatory streak running through the party that will no longer be tolerated. Have representatives go tell universities that they're harming actual progress by attacking young white men. The specifics something for the Dems to figure out, not for some guy on the internet. But don't worry, the Dems won't do anything like that.

If I could actually get a seat at the table, I'd be happy to read them the riot act, but neither me nor anyone like me will never get a seat sat at that table.

Ok, exactly how do universities’ humanities and social sciences betray them? How do university hires betray young men?

Are you honestly telling me that young men are so fragile that they cannot learn from women? That they cannot learn a curriculum that is not centered on male accomplishments but includes women’s well?

I went back to school in my twenties and in my forties as well. Most of my coursework was in biology and chemistry with some math and physics and of course some lit classes, one or two in psychology and in sociology back in the days when universities were supposed to provide education for students, not jobs training for future employers.

My husband recently retired and it is true that over the several decades of his career his department went from being all male to having half the department being female. There are now actually women in the physics department and chemistry dept. which is a big change, and a recent one.

Is that the problem? Or is it that now it’s talked about that one should not attempt to have sex with someone who has over imbibed, deliberately or not?

So unless I get more specific examples, I’m calling bullshit.

If you want a seat at the table, the first step is showing up. It’s amazing how few people do.

 

[RVonse]

How do university hires betray young men?

Poster Derec has in past provided many examples you have probably seen but dismissed out of hand.

And while you might disagree with some of his posts it is hard not to be moved by such obscene discrimination accomplished by our universities.

 

[Toni]

How do university hires betray young men?

Poster Derec has in past provided many examples you have probably seen but dismissed out of hand.

And while you might disagree with some of his posts it is hard not to be moved by such obscene discrimination accomplished by our universities.

I’ve been traveling and haven’t kept up on the whole thread. I asked him some questions but unless I missed it, he hasn’t replied.

 

[laughing dog]

How do university hires betray young men?

Poster Derec has in past provided many examples you have probably seen but dismissed out of hand.

And while you might disagree with some of his posts it is hard not to be moved by such obscene discrimination accomplished by our universities.

If it is so moving, it should be easy to come up with an actual answer.

 

[Patooka]

How do university hires betray young men?

Poster Derec has in past provided many examples you have probably seen but dismissed out of hand.

And while you might disagree with some of his posts it is hard not to be moved by such obscene discrimination accomplished by our universities.

If it is so moving, it should be easy to come up with an actual answer.

The good old "if you don't know why should I tell you Becker" argument. Gotta admit, I'm a bit surprised people like Derec and RVonse are using it as an argument considering a black woman said it.

I look forward to them 'splaining how Hattie Winston wasn't the first person to use such an argument.

 

[Politesse]

Publicly and vocally reject the radicals and make it clear they're being rejected.

So they need to attack British leftists on the internet viciously. And that will make young men vote for them? Why wouldn't they just vote for Trump, if those are their values? No matter how angrily and stridently Pelosi attacks Wokeness, she'll never be able to convincingly do that schtick better than Trump does. Look at Governor Newsom with his bullshit podcast, trying desperately to pretend to be a conservative all the sudden. No one believes him, and no one on the Right cares, because he cannot and will not go as far as real conservatives do in attacking trans people or immigrants or whoever. He'll always pull his punches, and that isn't what the Trump crowd wants.

 

[Toni]

In high school we read To Kill a Mockingbird. My teacher described Atticus Finch as a caricature of a masculine ideal: he was gentle, kind, and learned, and a great shot with a gun but only when it was absolutely necessary. It is childish (as befitting the story's narrator) but also a clear cut picture of a man being a hero. I expect that when most people think about the kind of men that they want to have around them, in their homes, their workplaces and their communities, then they'll think of men who share many of Atticus's virtues, and standing in strong contrast to the likes of the Proud Boys or Andrew Tate.

Young men generally want to feel a sense of belonging, to be wanted. This has several facets: they want to have a role to play in their community (their job, their community groups), they want to be desired by young women (with notable exceptions), they want to be help in high esteem by the people in their family, neighbourhood and social circles.

Boys nowadays grow up with countless examples of male behaviour. They aren't just learning from the men in their local community, they're learning from social media, TV, and films, plus all the advertising that's mixed in with the actual content. It's a lot to take in, and a lot of it is over the top. As someone I knew put it, "boys don't know how to act anymore." He lamented the fact that the masculine ideals of his childhood were no longer being celebrated in popular culture, and that there was no longer a clear model to follow.

We shouldn't want that old-fashioned model to return as-is, because it has some unnecessary baggage like chauvinism, homophobia, and alcoholism. But I think he was onto something: if we want our boys to live fulfilling lives and be good to people, then we would do everyone a favour by giving them very clear messages about how they ought to act. We, as parents and mentors, are up against a tidal wave of bullshit. On social media, where every women telling men what she wants in a boyfriend is met by ten red-pillers telling her she's wrong; against TV and films which tell boys they have to get jacked and solve their problems with their fists; against advertising which is in the business of inventing bullshit problems for bullshit solutions.

Atticus Finch was not a caricature—he was at worst an idealized stereotype of The Good Man. I see him as an archetype. What was unique about Atticus is how He eschewed violence and only shot the rabid dog because it was the best chance for eliminating the threat. He was a bit of an anomaly as he was mostly raising his kids on his own—of course the noble stereotype of the widowed father was often repeated in television shows on the 60’s and 70’s.

I agree that we need to give children a better idea and a better model of how to be a decent person. Boys have been especially targeted by the hateosphere.

Also, perhaps some will consider this trivial but: Can’t we bring back recess? Elementary school kids especially all need down time. We used to get morning recess, lunch recess ( after a half hour lunch sitting at a table) and an afternoon recess. Morning recess was dropped at about fifth grade, I’m guessing in recognition of growing bladder capacity. Also kids used to walk more to and from school or just plain walk more. Everybody needs some down time. Including and maybe especially kids.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

From Epstein’s Island to Musk’s Baby Farm — How the Right Redefined Masculinity as Control, by Thom Hartmann.

Underneath the memes, podcasts, and tradwife fantasies lies a dangerous agenda: train young men to reject equality, fear women’s power, and embrace authoritarianism disguised as masculinity . . .


Rape culture isn’t just at the top; it’s everywhere, especially in the digital spaces young men inhabit.


This isn’t just a parental issue, it’s a cultural emergency. This content is shaping how an entire generation understands sex, power, and consent.

And Trump’s “best friend” Epstein was an avatar of that twisted worldview.


. . .


White women are expected to go “back to the kitchen and bedroom,” producing more white babies in a panic about the “browning” of America.


This fixation on race and reproduction mirrors the same “Great Replacement Theory” rhetoric promoted on Fox “News” and other rightwing outlets that fed the Charlottesville rally and inspired mass murderers in Las Vegas, Buffalo, and El Paso.


From Trump saying, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?” to telling Esquire Magazine that “arm candy” is essential for a successful businessman (“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”) to sarcastically calling Kamala Harris “a beautiful woman,” our president has long made clear his thoughts on the role of women. . . .

Interesting article. I see the Democrats are determined to lose even more support from young men going forward. What are they shooting for the next election? 10%? Someone needs to take that shovel away...

And what's the status on the $20 million Democrats are spending to see what makes men tick? Have they come to any conclusions so far? Maybe they could hire Jane Goodall?

The meaning of this post eludes me. Just what is it you think Democrats should be doing?

What they shouldn't be doing is driving away heterosexual young men, but they have been quite successful at doing it.

I'm gonna be 56 next months, so I can let all this bullshit hostility towards "heteronormative" males slide off my back. However, if I was a young man, I'd run from the Democrats and the radical morons running the party.

It's shallow to say, but one of the main things that caused me to reject the GOP altogether was the controversy over Bill getting a blowjob. I was around 23 or 24 at the time. If I were that same age and hearing liberals say the shit they say now, fuck them, I'd be right out.

I like to have sex with women. I really liked the variety and amount of women I slept with, and I have zero regrets; it was awesome. If someone doesn't like it, they can, well, blow me.

23 year old me would've been out campaigning for the GOP because they'd accept me.

I do not believe that it is useful to talk about what someone shouldn't be doing, unless one has an alternative suggestion. As far as I know, the radical morons running the Democratic Party are not in fact opposed to heterosexuality in any way, so what is it you want them to do exactly?

It is useful to talk about they shouldn't be doing because it's what's driving so many people away from the party, particularly men. Trump gained in nearly every single demographic back in November and that may have very well killed democracy in this country. The only party that has any hope of saving it is the Democratic party.

However, what they should do is eschew the fringe elements who unfortunately seem to have the loudest voices. I often use the attacks on JK Rowling by the transactivist community as an example. She accidentally gave a like to something on Twitter and then withdrew it. She's been attacked as a fascist hate monger ever since. It's insane.

I hate that social media is so important, but it's not going to change, and what I referred to earlier regarding white male heterosexuals is coming from the left on social media, so the perception of not being wanted is an understandable one. One possible solution is that the Dems develop the courage to say they don't support those attacks rather than coddle the radicals.

Universities are another problem, but I have no solutions for that... maybe discrimination lawsuits, but that gets into some potentially ugly territory that I'm not comfortable with.

Do you think universities are discriminating against males?

Yes. They would never admit it, but their humanities and social "science" curricula betray them. Alienation of white males through admissions processes, faculty hirings, and the usually wrong misconception that they're all somehow privileged is a very real problem.

As I've told you before, I was in my early 40s when I went back to college and how I came out of undergrad with a new understanding of what conservatives were on about with respect to this issue. It certainly wasn't enough to cause me to vote GOP, but I understand very well how a young man could be so influenced.

What should the Dems do about this overall? Make a concerted effort to get these people back by welcoming them back. Make it clear that there's been a discriminatory streak running through the party that will no longer be tolerated. Have representatives go tell universities that they're harming actual progress by attacking young white men. The specifics something for the Dems to figure out, not for some guy on the internet. But don't worry, the Dems won't do anything like that.

If I could actually get a seat at the table, I'd be happy to read them the riot act, but neither me nor anyone like me will never get a seat sat at that table.

Ok, exactly how do universities’ humanities and social sciences betray them? How do university hires betray young men?

Are you honestly telling me that young men are so fragile that they cannot learn from women? That they cannot learn a curriculum that is not centered on male accomplishments but includes women’s well?

I went back to school in my twenties and in my forties as well. Most of my coursework was in biology and chemistry with some math and physics and of course some lit classes, one or two in psychology and in sociology back in the days when universities were supposed to provide education for students, not jobs training for future employers.

My husband recently retired and it is true that over the several decades of his career his department went from being all male to having half the department being female. There are now actually women in the physics department and chemistry dept. which is a big change, and a recent one.

Is that the problem? Or is it that now it’s talked about that one should not attempt to have sex with someone who has over imbibed, deliberately or not?

So unless I get more specific examples, I’m calling bullshit.

If you want a seat at the table, the first step is showing up. It’s amazing how few people do.

You asked what could be done, I gave you several examples.

"Are men really that fragile?" Keep on keepin' on with that and see where it gets you. Or maybe you can look at the White House and SCOTUS to see where revenge tour 2020 has landed us.

I'm glad there are more women in the sciences. I don't know how that's relevant to anything I said though. I said nothing about the hard sciences. Same goes for a lot of what you wrote.

I'd say your heavily implied comment about rape is beneath you, but it isn't. With respect to women, it infantilizes them as if they have no agency or responsibility of their own. Believe it or not, people get drunk and then regret what they've done. "Oh god, I can't believe I fucked that guy, but I was really drunk." Never heard that before?

I dare you to not read the following before you write your response to the above.

Spoiler: Don't Read Before You Respond

"So you think taking advantage of women when they're drunk isn't rape." Or, "You think it's okay to rape a woman who can't give consent?" It'll be something along those lines accompanied by thinly veiled implication I personally have committed such crimes and hold such positions.