4 ms·

>"Won't someone think of young men!" is a point that won't travel far because the world is owned and ruled by men, young and old If you demonize all current ge

>"Won't someone think of young men!" is a point that won't travel far because the world is owned and ruled by men, young and old If you demonize all current generation men in such a reductionist radical fashion, because of a handful of bad apples of men from previous generations, why are you surprised men now become radicalized against women and against society demonizing them? If someone would hate you and discriminante you based on an immutable characteristic like gender, wouldn't you be upset and vocal about it and look to vote for someone who promises to be on your side? How can we punish a group of people today for the original sin? >Because healthcare is only effective when men are willing to accept it Most men aren't in the luxurious position to be able to refuse care that's not even offered to them in the first place. Hence the 10x more homelessness and suicide than women. If you're a woman in risk of unemployment, homelessness or suicide, you have dozens of decent options of help available for you both public and private. If you're a man in the same situation, you have much fewer and of lower quality options or even none at all, or worse, a lot of "help" available for men is just telling them how they're priviledged and they need to shut up and man up and stop bitching about it. You can't tell me with a straight face there is no gender discrimination and anti-male bias here. >And the manosphere and machismo culture are part of the problem, not innocent symptoms. No. The core problem is societal anti male bias and discrimination which you pointed out yourself in the first phrase. The manosphere is not the cause, it's the release valve of the pent up frustrations of an entire generation.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Who is demonizing all men? Since when do women have more job opportunities than men? Certainly not true in most of the US and certainly not for the same pay. Society isn't anti-men. Society very clearly fears men, as both males and females should. Because men are -- as a group -- far more dangerous than females. There are many societal controls to counter act that danger. Until the rich no longer exploit the weak, and leave them powerless and without adequate healthcare, AND male culture becomes more pro-social and willing to accept help, things won't improve.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >Since when do women have more job opportunities than men? It's not about raw absolute numbers but DEI policies in companies and some gov jobs, have made plenty of good white collar jobs restricted to only women or giving priority to female candidates at the expense of competence, which is legally speaking just gender discriminations with a PR spin on top. You are not allowed by law to discriminate job candidates by immutable characteristics like gender. >Because men are -- as a group-- far more dangerous than females Treating men, and individuals generally, as a group based on statistics is just discrimination legally speaking. Imagine saying that society should fear black people because they are more dangerous because statistically speaking they're more likely commit more crimes than whites. That's the same kind of discrimination. Are you ok with this? >Until the rich no longer exploit the weak What does this have to do with the life of average men? 99,99% of men individually, are not rich and powerful enough to cause oppressions at societal level. Lots of global oppression is happening due to capitalist corporate greed which are a collective hive mind, at which many women are also at the helm on boards and help enable this oppression. It has nothing to do with gender. >AND male culture becomes more pro-social and willing to accept help Please share what help are men getting and refusing. You're creating this narrative around "male culture this" and "male culture that" not backed by any facts.
  - trogdor 2y ago
    > Treating men, and individuals generally, as a group based on statistics is just discrimination legally speaking. Imagine saying that society should fear black people because they are more dangerous because statistically speaking they're more likely commit more crimes than whites. That's the same kind of discrimination. Are you ok with this? Let’s take this to an extreme. Is there any point at which such discrimination becomes acceptable? Hypothetically, if it was known that 99 out of every 100 people who have a specific tattoo are predatory, violent muggers, should people not fear and be particularly cautious around that entire group? Assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that instead of a tattoo the indicator is a particular race, but the numbers are the same, does that change anything?
    - 2y ago

paulryanrogers 2y ago

Who is demonizing all men? Since when do women have more job opportunities than men? Certainly not true in most of the US and certainly not for the same pay. Society isn't anti-men. Society very clearly fears men, as both males and females should. Because men are -- as a group -- far more dangerous than females. There are many societal controls to counter act that danger. Until the rich no longer exploit the weak, and leave them powerless and without adequate healthcare, AND male culture becomes more pro-social and willing to accept help, things won't improve.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>Since when do women have more job opportunities than men? It's not about raw absolute numbers but DEI policies in companies and some gov jobs, have made plenty of good white collar jobs restricted to only women or giving priority to female candidates at the expense of competence, which is legally speaking just gender discriminations with a PR spin on top. You are not allowed by law to discriminate job candidates by immutable characteristics like gender. >Because men are -- as a group-- far more dangerous than females Treating men, and individuals generally, as a group based on statistics is just discrimination legally speaking. Imagine saying that society should fear black people because they are more dangerous because statistically speaking they're more likely commit more crimes than whites. That's the same kind of discrimination. Are you ok with this? >Until the rich no longer exploit the weak What does this have to do with the life of average men? 99,99% of men individually, are not rich and powerful enough to cause oppressions at societal level. Lots of global oppression is happening due to capitalist corporate greed which are a collective hive mind, at which many women are also at the helm on boards and help enable this oppression. It has nothing to do with gender. >AND male culture becomes more pro-social and willing to accept help Please share what help are men getting and refusing. You're creating this narrative around "male culture this" and "male culture that" not backed by any facts.
- trogdor 2y ago
  > Treating men, and individuals generally, as a group based on statistics is just discrimination legally speaking. Imagine saying that society should fear black people because they are more dangerous because statistically speaking they're more likely commit more crimes than whites. That's the same kind of discrimination. Are you ok with this? Let’s take this to an extreme. Is there any point at which such discrimination becomes acceptable? Hypothetically, if it was known that 99 out of every 100 people who have a specific tattoo are predatory, violent muggers, should people not fear and be particularly cautious around that entire group? Assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that instead of a tattoo the indicator is a particular race, but the numbers are the same, does that change anything?
  - 2y ago