5 ms·

The potential for trolling and general idiocy is high here, so I'll tread carefully. I think this is an uncomfortable truth that the Democratic party has yet to

• alphabettsy 1y ago
  > current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood I think this strongly depends on your reality and perception. How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space? On the other side, how can you not see examples of toxic masculinity demonstrated from prominent Republicans including the president?
  • tharne 1y ago
    > How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space? What would you say is the Democratic or progressive view of masculinity and where does it fit in the progressive or liberal worldview? As a former Democrat, that's not a question I can even begin to answer, because I don't think Democrats,liberals, or progressives see any value in or a role for masculinity. Simply pointing to the other side and saying, "there's some bad guys over there" is not a meaningful retort.
    • alphabettsy 1y ago
      I’m asking you to provide evidence for your claim. Personally, I don’t see Democrats talking about masculinity that seems to be an obsession of the right. I think it’s a meaningful because some of the people talking about masculinity and how the Democrats or the liberals want to take that away or get rid of it have often been the worst examples of it in my opinion. I also think it’s worth noting the leaders of political parties and how they themselves represent the values they claim to be fighting for.
      • slowmovintarget 1y ago
        You're right. Democrats don't talk about masculinity, they talk about erasure of gender instead. >> Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also notes liberal squeamishness about masculine themes; he says the party is losing male voters in part because even talking about the need to improve the lives of men could run afoul of what he calls the “word police” on the left. Murphy told me, “There’s a worry that when you start talking about gender differences and masculinity, that you’re going to very quickly get in trouble.” The Democratic Party, he thinks, has not been purposeful enough in opening up a conversation with men in general and young men specifically. “There is a reluctance inside the progressive movement to squarely acknowledge gender differences, and that has really put us on the back foot.” -- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/democrats-man-problem/682029/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/democra... If you can't even speak about the differences between men and women, let alone admit that men and women may face different issues because of those differences, then you'll push whoever you're not prioritizing away. Surely you'll admit that the Democrats prioritize women's issues (e.g. reproductive rights). Many Democrats actively deride men's concerns over economic anxiety, mental health, education gaps, and job losses in male-dominated sectors. When men didn't vote for Kamala, they were called sexist, explicitly and frequently by both Democrat politicians and the media. Young men who express concern over the future prospects given college and university degree programs graduating more women than men, especially in the last decade, earn the "toxic" label. There's far more going on with how boys are treated in school, with how media messaging across the board is slanted against masculinity, and how funding for all these efforts traces back to NGOs the Democrats empowered... So yes, Democrats don't talk about masculinity, on purpose.
• postpawl 1y ago
  I think you're conflating the Democratic Party with "left-wing philosophy." Actual left-wing ideology (Marx, Lenin, the socialist tradition) focuses on material conditions for workers: who owns the means of production, labor power, class relations. From that perspective, the problem isn't that Democrats have the wrong messaging about masculinity. It's that neither major US party offers politics centered on workers' material interests. Both parties abandoned class-based politics in favor of cultural appeals. If you're a young man struggling economically, being told you have "privilege" feels disconnected from your reality of declining wages and diminished prospects. But the socialist response isn't "better messaging about masculinity," it's organizing workers to gain power over their economic conditions.
  • tremon 1y ago
    To have even more fun with this, republicans were the original "left wing" while the right wing was composed of monarchists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing#History > Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right was between supporters of the French republic and those of the monarchy's privileges. It's fun to consider those same dividing lines in the current US climate: once again, it's the right wing that tries very hard to establish an absolute ruler, while the left aims to maintain the current republic (or to salvage what's left of it).
  • qcnguy 1y ago
    Left wing philosophy did not start and end with Marx. Leftists who pretend 1900s era leftism is somehow the True Left are annoying. He was just one in a series of extremely far left thinkers. Most people with a good historical education would point to the original leftists being the Jacobins. That's where we get the terms left and right from. But you could also argue that even Jesus Christ was a leftist by the standards of his day, and we just struggle to see it because politics as we know it now didn't exist back then. He wasn't a fan of capitalism! The Bible says he preached peace and then went in with some followers and beat up market traders for no better reason than he thought trade shouldn't be allowed around temples (or we can infer he didn't like markets and traders in general, but having cast himself as a religious figure he had no excuse to rail against it in non-religious places). > Both parties abandoned class-based politics in favor of cultural appeals. Yes they did because Marxist thought is wrong and destructive. It should have never been adopted at all but after lots of evidence in the 20th century most people did give it up. The notion of "class" is a poor description of reality. Marxism always had trouble classifying small business owners. They do manual physical labor, so should be working class, but they are also capitalists. He would have been baffled by the ramen eating startup grinders of today. Marxism has no way to properly incorporate this basic and common fact into its thinking. Or, he probably wouldn't be baffled really, because if you read a biography of him it's clear he hardly ever left his study and was uninterested in exploring the real world outside of books and newspapers. His friend Engels invited him to visit a factory Engles owned, and Marx refused, despite supposedly fighting for the factory workers.
• QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
  Joe Biden embodied many of the classic aspects of masculinity I find valuable- love for his family, moral fortitude (specifically, the ability to do the right thing instead of the thing-that-looks-right, see the Afghanistan pullout or his early support for gay marriage), as well as the classics like physical fitness, style, propriety and getting things done. The people running the algorithms hate this, and so you're never going to see evidence that he was loved for his masculinity online, but there's a reason he won his primaries. Unfortunately, Biden just got old as shit, and no one came up behind him- Gavin Newsom is what, 1 for six on the criteria I brought up?
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • aworks 1y ago
    I thought Biden won the nomination by winning the vote of African-American women in the pivotal South Carolina primary, after a major endorsement by Representative Jim Clyburn. I can't parse what I just wrote to decide how Biden's masculinity played into that result.
• flatline 1y ago
  I’m not sure that it’s masculinity per se that is a sticking point on the Left, it’s the other thing you pointed to, the culture around how we address these things. So-called “cancel culture” is actually a very masculine and conservative activity, specifically by way of established dominance and social hierarchy, and reinforcing in-group norms. It can be about toxic masculinity, racism, misogyny, homophobia, whatever. I think that these are all real things and important to address, but participating in make-wrong and alienating fellow leftists, while completely dismissing non-leftists as inhuman, is self-defeating. I like the idea of “call-in” vs “call-out” culture. By inviting other people to the table in a private setting and opening a dialogue to discuss the experiences of marginalized people - or any individual’s need for accommodation - rather than scolding people in public for not adhering to in-group norms that may be completely opaque to outsiders, you change the dynamic. And just by relating to people as people, in more intimate and personal settings than online anonymous forums or a standoffish workplace culture, we take down some of the walls that seem to separate us.
• Simulacra 1y ago
  I think the idea of masculinity versus femininity, versus nothing, should be removed from politics. No one should be demonizing any of it, some people are masculine, some people are feminine, some people are in between or nothing at all or neither. I don't like to see The political universe demonizing what is really innate human behavior.
  • neom 1y ago
    Yes indeed. When I was a young man I heard the now famous quote "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" by Pierre Trudeau. It was concerning the homosexuality debates in the politics of the 60s, but it always stuck with me as a generally good rule of thumb, do we really need to bring this stuff into politics? Who I pray to, who I sleep with, and what my T levels are, don't seem particularly germane. You put it eloquently, the political universe really does spend considerably too much energy demonizing what is really innate human behavior.
    • thrance 1y ago
      There is exactly one side seeking to police who is allowed to be with who, and how. The left's stance on these issues has always be to maximize freedom, while the right's has always been to remove from society all those who don't conform to their particular views.
      • xigoi 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • thrance 1y ago
          [flagged]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• t-writescode 1y ago
  I am *not* a sociologist or a psychologist or anything in that realm, so I do NOT know the implications of what I'm saying or how much accuracy I have. I think you're right that it's wrong to hate on boys (and the men they grow up to be) for wanting to mold themselves into society's current reflection of what a man is. It's often said that the Left has a branding problem - and that a lot of the Left's stances are too cerebral for the sound-bite and gossip culture we have lived in since forever (and that has gotten more extreme in the world of micro-form content). I think that's correct. I think there is much to be said about the Left doing a poor job right now of separating and giving strong examples of toxic and non-toxic masculinity - I do think the Left is getting way better at that now, with some very left-leaning men, who DEEPLY fit the Masculine Archetype starting to reveal themselves - there's a specific Afghanistan Vet running for office whose name escapes me that comes to mind; and also that one guy chopping wood. I think a reasonable argument could be made that, at least in relative recency, Masculinity has been experiencing the kind of transition that Femininity went through in the 80s - a complete reversal and even rejection or hatred of recently feminine roles[0]. I've heard that women were hated for wanting to be stay-at-home mothers, like they were rejecting the progress that had been made. Recently, we've started to reverse that again and now a woman can be anything she wants, including a CEO and a stay-at-home mom, without being ostracized (as much) or hated for her choices. We'll get there with men, too, I hope. At least, we will in some circles. I also think that the Right (and especially the Alt-Right Pipeline) are taking advantage of the framing and blurring of Toxic Masculine traits vs. Non-Toxic Masculine traits. Even the wording: "toxic v non-toxic" puts the negative as the stronger term and the positive only as a negation of the negative. And this conflation and attack reads *very* well for anyone that struggles to find acceptance in both their community and within themselves. It's not just that, either, it's the whole culture. I'm sure we've all seen the stories of men who, when they do open up to a woman they thought was safe, the woman reflects that she doesn't feel "like he's a man anymore" and so even in places people think should be safe, they have working examples (either in video or in personally lived experiences) of when that DOESN'T work, and the contradiction and pain is exacerbated. Being accepted for who you are is really, really hard. The generational trauma of a great grandfather who was told by his father to not show emotion, and then carried that same emotion down through the lineage gets us here. The orator who uses their platform to blames others and then how those negative feelings permeate generation after generation. Pain is continued through so many through-lines. And underneath it all, unique people with different life-starting circumstances and different wants and desires just want to be able to be who they are - or who they *want* to be, and there's always someone, somewhere, that tells them what they want is wrong. That person gained their perspective through the same hell and is probably facing the same pain, possibly without even knowing it. And so the cycle continues. [0] I don't like using the word "Traditional" because gender roles are very fluid and our "Traditional Gender Roles" is mostly a myth that was basically from the post WW2 period through the Vietnam War.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• random9749832 1y ago
  >Carl Jung and others who explore archetypes and symbols understands this well. Anyone who dates and has sex understands this. Masculine energy attracts feminine energy. You don't need a PHD in it.
  • pegasus 1y ago
    I guess even stags in rut "understand" this. But there are levels of understanding. Read something like The Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Neumann and you might agree it reaches a deeper level.
• amelius 1y ago
  > I think this is an uncomfortable truth What truth? A derivative tells you nothing about the absolute value of a function. Maybe the Democrats have a higher base T than Republicans, for all we know. And they just turn "red" when you overdose them on it, temporarily. You can probably find similar results with other substances.
• _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Define what you are talking about if you want to put your stake in the ground so people can respond. What is masculinity as it is commonly understood? I believe men should be willing to fight for the group. Republicans think it should be every individual for themselves. I believe in myself enough I don't need to surround myself with the same religion/race as me. Republicans are afraid they will be replaced. I believe men should be able to have sex, and that birth control should be legal so they can do that. Republicans don't believe that. I believe in hanging out with my bros. Republicans love to hang out with pretend bros by listening to podcasts. I believe I should be self sufficient and shouldn't need a surrogate mother to take care of me. So I do my own laundry, I cook, I clean. Like a real grown adult human. I believe enough in myself enough I don't need to sequester my partner away from the world and keep them at home. These are like THE defining masculine traits. Protect others. Secure in yourself around others. Having sex. Being engaging enough to hang out with. Be self sufficient. Confident enough of yourself not to be jealous/overprotective of your partner or need to keep them hidden away at home. Republicans have none of these. I live in a red state. All the REAL men (forresters, park rangers) are dems. Now the short guy rolling coal in his ridiculous truck, sure, he's a republican. The cop wearing a bulletproof vest while on duty in my tiny mountain town, sure, he's a republican. I guess that's the masculinity the right talks about. The appearance of masculinity. Not ACTUAL, lived, legit masculinity.
  • cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
  • xigoi 1y ago
    > I believe men should be able to have sex So why demonize men for wanting to have sex, with phrases like “men only want one thing”, “sexual objectification”, “entitled incel”, “thought rape”, etc.?
  • zassy 1y ago
    Just so you know, Dems, leftists, progressives or whatever group you identify as will do so much better at appealing to men as a demographic whenever you guys are able to talk about men as a demographic without taking advantage of all these random opportunities to needlessly shit on virgins and short men.
• thrance 1y ago
  You can't cite Jung and be expected to be taken seriously in 2025. Type "Animus and Anima" in Google and see how crackpot this all sounds and looks. Republicans are stuck with their backwards views, and they shut their mind completely to concepts like "patriarchy", which elicits violent, automatic reactions from them. I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left, and understand that the leftist projects by no means intends to harm men as a group. To the contrary, liberating men from having to conform to a specific ideal is extremely freeing. So is not being berated for their height, lack of big muscles or whatever it is one "lacks" compared to the model man.
  • trogdor 1y ago
    >I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left What does patriarchy mean to the left?
  • qcnguy 1y ago
    > So is not being berated for their height, lack of big muscles or whatever it is one "lacks" compared to the model man. Sounds like you haven't been in the dating pool for a few decades. Go on Tinder and look at what women put in their profiles. Claiming that leftism "liberated" men from being judged by conventional characteristics is delusional. Minimum height requirements are common. Many women also claim to have minimum income requirements. This stuff has never gone away, of course it has not, why would it? The left never criticizes the behavior of women, only men. > I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left, and understand that the leftist projects by no means intends to harm men as a group. Your problem is that you're using a theoretical definition that doesn't match reality, and the right use a definition based on observed behavior, so you think they're wrong. But they're not wrong. The sort of people who talk about patriarchy always desire to hurt men as a group, and often do. Citing theory in response should get you laughed at.
  • HK-NC 1y ago
    Or small hands, perhaps?
• nurettin 1y ago
  Black pill movement is a scam, get over it.
• UncleMeat 1y ago
  The research does not actually show "republican men have more testosterone than democratic men."