3 ms·

You went from tampons in men’s bathrooms to If the left had been focusing on broadly inclusive issues (speak to 5% of persuadable people, instead of 1% of extr

by sympil 2y ago

You went from tampons in men’s bathrooms to If the left had been focusing on broadly inclusive issues (speak to 5% of persuadable people, instead of 1% of extremists who'll stay home on election day anyhow) we could have 'woke' up in a different America; anti-fascists crying wolf for 20 years brought on the thing they said they were afraid of -- or were they? I know you feel this to be the case in the same way PG feels “woke” is what made Silicon Valley turn rightward. But do you have evidence beyond your feelings? It’s OK if you don’t. Most of our beliefs about such matters are unsubstantiated. My view is that this is all part of a new reactionary masculine pushback. For the first time in thousands of years women in a few countries are able to exercise sexual autonomy and are gaining economic independence. Men largely can’t handle this new reality.

PaulHoule 2y ago
See what it is like from a women's perspective https://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Hurts-Sociological-Explanation/dp/0745671071 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Hurts-Sociological-Explanati... PG's talk about it reminds me of Rush Limbaugh talking about Net Neutrality. I disagreed with Rush about most things but most of the time I thought Rush had some understanding of the issues he talked about. His opposition to Net Neutrality came across as completely ignorant, he didn't seem to know what it was, he was just against it because the phone company told him to be against it, the same way that my son's trans friend hates J. K. Rowling because somebody told them to. Unlike PG I can point to specific men and women, some trans, who have been hurt by it. That's a step up in evidence. I've spent plenty of time looking at conference proceedings, review articles and such in the social sciences. If a literature search turns up a conclusive conclusion about anything it's because somebody wrote one paper and nobody followed it up for 20 years.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Here's my view. (Disclaimer: I lean conservative, quite anti Trump, and think liberals have some valid points. Use that to decide whether to bother reading.) Liberals/Democrats, classically, were the party of the little guy, the working class. The working class has been being destroyed ever since NAFTA. Thinks are getting worse and worse for them. The Democrats should have been running on how the economy effects the little guy. They should have been the ones screaming about the price of eggs. Instead, the impression everyone got was that, if you're working class but you don't think gay marriage is a good idea, or you don't think trans people belong in womens' bathrooms and on womens' sports teams, or you don't like abortion, then you're a moral leper, and the Democratic party is committed to the total eradication of your viewpoint and culture. Unsurprisingly (given human nature), a bunch of people on the receiving end of that decided to flip the Democrats the bird, and instead voted for the guy who at least pretended to care about their concerns. So, yeah. There may be "reactionary masculine pushback", but I think it's more pushback from the socially conservative section of the working class. Those people are supposed to be the Democrats' core constituency, but the Democrats quit listening to them.
- sympil 2y ago
  I largely agree with your overall points. What follows is my pet theory for how this angst is being manifested at this time. I’m very liberal. The Democratic party is dead to me. I think this demise of the Democratic party started under Clinton when he embraced neo-liberalism and decided against worker and environmental protections in the free trade agreements. It’s rational for people to not want illegal immigration. Liberals look for heretics while conservatives look for converts. But at this time in U.S. history I think the genesis of the backlash comes from disenchanted men and this disenchantment largely stems from women being empowered sexually and otherwise. The American political system has major structural imbalances so it was inevitable that a backlash of some form took hold. The system needs rebalancing. Such is my unsubstantiated, non expert view.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    I'm going to add that Susan Faludi wrote about "Backlash" in 1991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_Against_American_Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_A... and she wrote "Stiffed" about the problem of men in 1999, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_A... There is a case study in that second book about Stanley, a brand that represented masculinity and how it's trajectory reflected the decline of men, in recent years Stanley has become a symbol of female-gendered consumerism.
    - sympil 2y ago
      Interesting. Thanks for the links.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Myself I'm fine with gay marriage. If you can pass, use whatever bathroom you want, just don't show me anything I don't want to see. (e.g. if you want to be a man, man up!) I think it is up to sports leagues to decide who plays: I don't want the state to mandate it either way. (A man I know was one of the charter players on the Sirens, a women's hockey team, because they didn't have enough players to make a quorum and he wasn't particularly big or dangerous.)

by sympil 2y ago

PaulHoule 2y ago

See what it is like from a women's perspective https://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Hurts-Sociological-Explanation/dp/0745671071 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Hurts-Sociological-Explanati... PG's talk about it reminds me of Rush Limbaugh talking about Net Neutrality. I disagreed with Rush about most things but most of the time I thought Rush had some understanding of the issues he talked about. His opposition to Net Neutrality came across as completely ignorant, he didn't seem to know what it was, he was just against it because the phone company told him to be against it, the same way that my son's trans friend hates J. K. Rowling because somebody told them to. Unlike PG I can point to specific men and women, some trans, who have been hurt by it. That's a step up in evidence. I've spent plenty of time looking at conference proceedings, review articles and such in the social sciences. If a literature search turns up a conclusive conclusion about anything it's because somebody wrote one paper and nobody followed it up for 20 years.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Here's my view. (Disclaimer: I lean conservative, quite anti Trump, and think liberals have some valid points. Use that to decide whether to bother reading.) Liberals/Democrats, classically, were the party of the little guy, the working class. The working class has been being destroyed ever since NAFTA. Thinks are getting worse and worse for them. The Democrats should have been running on how the economy effects the little guy. They should have been the ones screaming about the price of eggs. Instead, the impression everyone got was that, if you're working class but you don't think gay marriage is a good idea, or you don't think trans people belong in womens' bathrooms and on womens' sports teams, or you don't like abortion, then you're a moral leper, and the Democratic party is committed to the total eradication of your viewpoint and culture. Unsurprisingly (given human nature), a bunch of people on the receiving end of that decided to flip the Democrats the bird, and instead voted for the guy who at least pretended to care about their concerns. So, yeah. There may be "reactionary masculine pushback", but I think it's more pushback from the socially conservative section of the working class. Those people are supposed to be the Democrats' core constituency, but the Democrats quit listening to them.

sympil 2y ago
I largely agree with your overall points. What follows is my pet theory for how this angst is being manifested at this time. I’m very liberal. The Democratic party is dead to me. I think this demise of the Democratic party started under Clinton when he embraced neo-liberalism and decided against worker and environmental protections in the free trade agreements. It’s rational for people to not want illegal immigration. Liberals look for heretics while conservatives look for converts. But at this time in U.S. history I think the genesis of the backlash comes from disenchanted men and this disenchantment largely stems from women being empowered sexually and otherwise. The American political system has major structural imbalances so it was inevitable that a backlash of some form took hold. The system needs rebalancing. Such is my unsubstantiated, non expert view.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  I'm going to add that Susan Faludi wrote about "Backlash" in 1991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_Against_American_Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_A... and she wrote "Stiffed" about the problem of men in 1999, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_A... There is a case study in that second book about Stanley, a brand that represented masculinity and how it's trajectory reflected the decline of men, in recent years Stanley has become a symbol of female-gendered consumerism.
  - sympil 2y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for the links.
PaulHoule 2y ago
Myself I'm fine with gay marriage. If you can pass, use whatever bathroom you want, just don't show me anything I don't want to see. (e.g. if you want to be a man, man up!) I think it is up to sports leagues to decide who plays: I don't want the state to mandate it either way. (A man I know was one of the charter players on the Sirens, a women's hockey team, because they didn't have enough players to make a quorum and he wasn't particularly big or dangerous.)