5 ms·

But interestingly, one gets much more attention than the other.

• TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Correct. The left cares about the dispossessed, at least to the extent that it gives them votes, but all the anti-men-in-power animosity does spill over I think to the effect of making it hard to drum up sympathy for men where men are suffering. The right mostly doesn't give a shit about the dispossessed, at least as far as potential government intervention goes. They're more social darwinist; if some men are really suffering, maybe they should stop being such losers, goes the thinking.
  • AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    maybe they should stop being such losers I think another motive here may be that if you provide "the dispossessed" and benefits, you create the incentive to become dispossessed. This problem is relatively easy to solve on a small community level (all family knows that aunt Rosa isn't actually as sick as she likes to pretend), but becomes extremely complicated when scaled to the whole country.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • ackshually 7y ago
    I'm not american, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see in the american news many liberal strongholds have the highest homeless rates and aren't doing a lot to remedy the situation - lacking low income housing etc. It makes me a little skeptical that "the left"[1] care that much about the homeless. [1] I'll be honest I think "the left" and "liberal" are kind of useless catch all term at this point and lumps too many people into one group together. For instance, for this conversation I mean middle class college educated men and women living in coastal american cities that had at least semi-stable childhoods.
    • TulliusCicero 7y ago
      Yes, but you have to consider that the homeless aren't fixed to a certain place. A place that's more generous to the homeless will inevitably get more homeless people. Because why wouldn't you go to somewhere that treats you better, rather than the place that treats you like garbage? This means there's a financial incentive for any given city to treat the homeless like shit. Classic free rider problem; why not let other cities deal with helping them? If you look at the countries where they do a better job, what you largely see is not a handful of metros doing their part, while other cities and the national government completely shunt the responsibility. The whole country contributes, is at least sort of on the same page. At least, that's been my experience living in Germany and reading about other places. So in my opinion, what we'd need to see is a federal mandate that doesn't let some cities mooch off of others' charity. But short of Bernie storming the white House and the Dems getting an overwhelming majority in both halves of Congress, it's hard to see that happening. Anyway, I don't disagree that more liberal cities could do more, but at the same time I don't think the problem is solvable without national involvement.
      • ackshually 7y ago
        Very fair point, haven't thought about it that way. I wonder if any studies have been done on where the homeless in the liberal leaning cities actually originally come from. As for the Dems in congress - You'd need the right kind of democrat also. I think Hillary clinton did a real number to that parties reputation during her time in power. The american democrats desperately need smart, ethical and above all honest new faces that will fight the rampant corruption in american politics.
        • AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
          People in the thread below were complaining about how toxic reddit is. Politics is ten times worse. Why would a smart, ethical and honest person ever get within a gunshot of politics? And should by any accident that happen, how such a person would survive?
        • TulliusCicero 7y ago
  • bitlax 7y ago
    > The right mostly doesn't give a shit about the dispossessed, at least as far as potential government intervention goes. They're more social darwinist; if some men are really suffering, maybe they should stop being such losers, goes the thinking. Well yeah, being against government intervention is sort of the classic definition of the American political right. People on the right believe that when possible you should choose private charity over government programs. They also donate more to private charities.
    • jraby3 7y ago
      Yes but those are primarily religious organizations.
      • bitlax 7y ago
        Yes they believe much of the care for the needy should be undertaken by institutions like religious organizations.
      • tropo 7y ago
        Even when you exclude religious organizations, the right donates more. It's an odd fact, isn't it? It doesn't mesh well with the portrayal of them as stingy people who don't care about others.
    • TulliusCicero 7y ago
      Yes, and that's what we have right now. How has that worked for us, compared to other countries? We all know the answer is that the homeless are radically better off in those interventionist countries. Ergo, if we care about results, ours are rather abysmal. > Well yeah, being against government intervention is sort of the classic definition of the American political right. To a certain extent, but it also depends on the domain. The right is very much in favor of government intervention for some things, like who you're allowed to marry, or how you can have sex.
  • growlist 7y ago
    Left? Right? Sadly these days I think that the vast majority of politicians are merely playing a role when it comes to political persuasion, and would be quite happy to do a complete 180 in standpoint if it meant a sufficiently large pay off in terms of power and/or money.
• sct202 7y ago
  The MRA groups, on Reddit at least, seem to spend more time blaming other people for things that are affecting men versus figuring out ways to overcome the issues.
  • spikels 7y ago
    Ditto for every identity group.
  • everdrive 7y ago
    The salient point of an identity group is to be angry at the other groups. This is true of all the groups, and is a very important vice to avoid. It's alluring in a way that people don't have very good defenses against.
  • harimau777 7y ago
    It seems to me that in many cases the answer may be "what's the alternative?" For example, if someone doesn't know how to find a girlfriend, then PUAs are the only game in town. Until viable alternatives are presented I suspect that men will keep going with what's available.
  • growlist 7y ago
    Thing is though, whenever they do do something - like say, organising a group to discuss their problems - they get attacked, ridiculed etc. in a way that no other group ever does today.
  • akuchling 7y ago
    At least https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/ takes a more enlightened approach.