> Donald Trump pulled off a stunning political comeback because of … young men.
If you break exit poll data down by race [1], Black men 18-29 supported Harris by a whopping 55 percentage points. So even though Scott pays lip service to Black male educators being particularly underrepresented, he can't explain why this alleged phenomenon affecting young men is so vastly different between demographics.
Only 55 percentage points? Did you mean "whopping" in an ironic sense? I expected that stat to be higher. This speaks to just how bad of a candidate Harris was.
Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany (APPD) [1] had the solution: Isolated Gewalterlebnisparks, i. e. violent theme parks! Sort of a Disneyland of Gore on a jungle island or somesuch. There, the true POWER of one's inner ALPHA can be UNLEASHED in televised FIGHTS over scraps of MEAT... and willing TRADWIVES. Just like in the OLD days, the TRAD days.
I vehemently reject the idea that the left believes, or even phrases their policies to imply, that men, young men, or white men are "the problem". There is a portion of society experiencing persecution bias, and I'm not singaling out any group(s) with that statement. We will never again progress as a society as long as we continue to view the success of someone else as our failure. This goes both ways.
The article lists a number of issues, and 90% of them apply to everyone in our society, not just men, not just the young, not just white people. Why do these young white men read "we the people" and not see it literally applying to all humans? Martin Luther King Jr's speech was as much about little black boys and girls holding hands with little white boys and girls. This isn't exclusion.
We've constructed a society where an average man with an average job will get married, have kids, get divorced and spend the next decade working a job that doesn't materially or otherwise benefit him.
> Why are we so averse to identifying and celebrating what’s good about men and masculinity, and why does it matter? Because we won’t prosper if we convince boys and young men that they’re victims, or that they don’t have to be persistent and resilient, or that their perspective isn’t valuable. If we do, we’ll end up with a society of old people and zero economic growth.
It's much worse than that. History shows that young men are the free radicals of society. If a society doesn't have systems in place that enable them to form stable relationships with partners, peers, and esteemed communities, they will burn the thing to the ground out of rage at being thrown into a system that doesn't want them.
Thinking there’s a lot of true things in here being pulled into a narrative that doesn’t really make sense in context. Not saying young men don’t have problems, but even with all those problems they’re still earning ten percent more than women in the same age bracket.
Men and women have different preferences. Men work hard to basically have money to spend on women (who demand that men make more), and women have the preference to have kids and experiences rather than straight cash. Young women generally make more than young men, and get better and more comfortable jobs.
There are some problems brewing in society for quite some time now. A demographic for which things changed too much, too fast, and not at all for the better will sooner or later react in a way nobody will like.
I remember reading an article [0] a few years ago that was surprising at first and then when I looked around it wasn’t so surprising anymore.
I haven't read that book, but I might now. It's refreshing to see such a realistic assessment of the problems. IMO, the most important line from that page:
>The problems of boys and men are structural in nature, rather than individual; but are rarely treated as such.
This is why shame does nothing productive, whether it's shaming boys for displaying "masculine" traits or displaying "feminine" traits. We can't address a social problem by asking every individual to change. That's just not feasible, even if there weren't a "man-o-sphere" and "radical feminism movement" working against it. Heck, even if the root problem was a personal one that each man could solve for himself, our options would still be a society-wide solution or tossing our hands up in resignation and hoping for the best.
As a man in my 40s I do wonder how I'd fare as a 17 year old today. Back in my teenage years I was deeply awkward, spent a ton of time in my room on my computer (IRC, baby!) and was pretty directionless. Eventually I realised that I needed to do something. Talk to girls. Absolutely crashed and burned the first few times I did it but slowly got better. I started attending the parties kids in my school were throwing rather than sitting at home all night.
But there wasn't a highly motivated and profitable enterprise targeted at me telling me I was a victim. If the "manosphere" existed back then and I was plugged into all the podcasts telling me how the modern world hates men and treats us all unfairly I might have never left that bubble and would have probably spiraled into bitterness. I can't help but feel like we've cursed younger generations (both genders, different effects) with social media and the influencer economy that has a financial interest in their continued isolation.
Every time the author mentions a problem that young men face, he explains it away by saying that it stems from a society that's built against serving the needs of men, even though the outcomes affect women all the same. He mentions the college debt crisis and it's affects on men merely one breath after explaining that women outnumber men in higher education. The housing affordability crisis is also not exclusive to men. Workforce participation of men can also be explained by relaxed gender roles and more women entering the workforce while their male counterparts take on domestic work. Pretty much the only thing he rightfully identifies as a uniquely male issue is suicide. Nobody is averse to identifying the issues that men face, but be correct in what you're identifying as a uniquely male issue. This author has been making the rounds in popular culture lately and I can't help but feel like it's because he's offering an oversimplified solution to a problem that runs much deeper than how we treat men and young boys. Society consistently asks women and non-White people to take ownership of their own problems, why can't we ask the same of men?
>Pretty much the only thing he rightfully identifies as a uniquely male issue is suicide.
Haha you must be a woman. Men are more severely punished in court for the same crimes, disproportionately lose assets and custody in divorce, get discriminated against at work on DEI terms, go to college less than ever (maybe a good idea, but opposite stats would trigger outrage), and yes they even get less sex on average. They are constantly told that women don't need or want them, they have a ton of privilege (even as they struggle). If you stand up for yourself as a man, people call you a lot of nasty names like "incel" or "Nazi".
>This author has been making the rounds in popular culture lately and I can't help but feel like it's because he's offering an oversimplified solution to a problem that runs much deeper than how we treat men and young boys.
Honestly I could not get through this article. This guy is being promoted by somebody. There are far better voices for men out there who don't mince words when describing the problems men face.
>Society consistently asks women and non-White people to take ownership of their own problems, why can't we ask the same of men?
Overwhelmingly women and minorities have been promoted literally at the expense of men. Companies give bonuses for checking off boxes, and skirt the law to put white men down. Society is not one monolithic voice. While some people have told everyone to take responsibility for themselves, the dominant political regime for perhaps the past 30-50 years (and by far much worse in the past 15 or so) has been favoring women over men on average. You can't talk about men's issues without first apologizing to women who have never seen anything but positive favoritism from the system, yet think they are oppressed. The same statement applies to the everyone vs. white men dynamic.
At some point, being mean to specific groups such as white men, or men in general, is going to backfire. But I expect the system to try to preempt that and force the issue, to further vilify the actual victims here.
1. blue collar jobs (mostly men) aren’t abundant. Simply put, we’re not building much of anything in the US. So, why would they be. Tech is mostly men but is importing most of the labor (at least for Silicon Valley). So, tech isn’t helping American men.
2. Dating norms have completely changed. Looks have become a much bigger percentage of the reason why women choose their partner than ever before. Dating apps being the main way for educated grads to meet partners is just a symptom - not the cause. Looksism was taking off before apps caught fire - the apps just accelerated it.
3. Costs have skyrocketed while expectations around men being providers have not changed. While there are a decent amount of men who probably are toxically attached to some idea of being a provider - most men I’ve met would kill for a wife who made significantly more than them. Men typically hate working too. Almost all have resigned and have just accepted that the only way she will contribute is either by her parents giving a ton of money or she will work her job that pays nowhere near as much as his. There are, of course, a good amount of similarly earning couples but for single men - you’re not often choosing your equal when out dating. Hypergamy, etc.
Discrimination against men is at epic proportions and is justified by falsified studies showing a wage gap that does not exist.
The American government is picking winners at very high rates. If you are a native American, here's money and jobs and special rights. If you're a black woman, here is a paid for down payment and mortgage, highly paid jobs, etc.
We need to shrink the government dramatically to get back our individual rights and freedoms. Or young men will continue to opt out of the unfair game.
22 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 55.7 ms ] threadIf you break exit poll data down by race [1], Black men 18-29 supported Harris by a whopping 55 percentage points. So even though Scott pays lip service to Black male educators being particularly underrepresented, he can't explain why this alleged phenomenon affecting young men is so vastly different between demographics.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-result...
Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany (APPD) [1] had the solution: Isolated Gewalterlebnisparks, i. e. violent theme parks! Sort of a Disneyland of Gore on a jungle island or somesuch. There, the true POWER of one's inner ALPHA can be UNLEASHED in televised FIGHTS over scraps of MEAT... and willing TRADWIVES. Just like in the OLD days, the TRAD days.
1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Pogo_Party_of_German...]
Let's have a war.
The article lists a number of issues, and 90% of them apply to everyone in our society, not just men, not just the young, not just white people. Why do these young white men read "we the people" and not see it literally applying to all humans? Martin Luther King Jr's speech was as much about little black boys and girls holding hands with little white boys and girls. This isn't exclusion.
Is it really surprising that men are opting out?
It's much worse than that. History shows that young men are the free radicals of society. If a society doesn't have systems in place that enable them to form stable relationships with partners, peers, and esteemed communities, they will burn the thing to the ground out of rage at being thrown into a system that doesn't want them.
I remember reading an article [0] a few years ago that was surprising at first and then when I looked around it wasn’t so surprising anymore.
[0] https://ofboysandmen.substack.com/p/why-boys-and-men
>The problems of boys and men are structural in nature, rather than individual; but are rarely treated as such.
This is why shame does nothing productive, whether it's shaming boys for displaying "masculine" traits or displaying "feminine" traits. We can't address a social problem by asking every individual to change. That's just not feasible, even if there weren't a "man-o-sphere" and "radical feminism movement" working against it. Heck, even if the root problem was a personal one that each man could solve for himself, our options would still be a society-wide solution or tossing our hands up in resignation and hoping for the best.
But there wasn't a highly motivated and profitable enterprise targeted at me telling me I was a victim. If the "manosphere" existed back then and I was plugged into all the podcasts telling me how the modern world hates men and treats us all unfairly I might have never left that bubble and would have probably spiraled into bitterness. I can't help but feel like we've cursed younger generations (both genders, different effects) with social media and the influencer economy that has a financial interest in their continued isolation.
Haha you must be a woman. Men are more severely punished in court for the same crimes, disproportionately lose assets and custody in divorce, get discriminated against at work on DEI terms, go to college less than ever (maybe a good idea, but opposite stats would trigger outrage), and yes they even get less sex on average. They are constantly told that women don't need or want them, they have a ton of privilege (even as they struggle). If you stand up for yourself as a man, people call you a lot of nasty names like "incel" or "Nazi".
>This author has been making the rounds in popular culture lately and I can't help but feel like it's because he's offering an oversimplified solution to a problem that runs much deeper than how we treat men and young boys.
Honestly I could not get through this article. This guy is being promoted by somebody. There are far better voices for men out there who don't mince words when describing the problems men face.
>Society consistently asks women and non-White people to take ownership of their own problems, why can't we ask the same of men?
Overwhelmingly women and minorities have been promoted literally at the expense of men. Companies give bonuses for checking off boxes, and skirt the law to put white men down. Society is not one monolithic voice. While some people have told everyone to take responsibility for themselves, the dominant political regime for perhaps the past 30-50 years (and by far much worse in the past 15 or so) has been favoring women over men on average. You can't talk about men's issues without first apologizing to women who have never seen anything but positive favoritism from the system, yet think they are oppressed. The same statement applies to the everyone vs. white men dynamic.
At some point, being mean to specific groups such as white men, or men in general, is going to backfire. But I expect the system to try to preempt that and force the issue, to further vilify the actual victims here.
1. blue collar jobs (mostly men) aren’t abundant. Simply put, we’re not building much of anything in the US. So, why would they be. Tech is mostly men but is importing most of the labor (at least for Silicon Valley). So, tech isn’t helping American men.
2. Dating norms have completely changed. Looks have become a much bigger percentage of the reason why women choose their partner than ever before. Dating apps being the main way for educated grads to meet partners is just a symptom - not the cause. Looksism was taking off before apps caught fire - the apps just accelerated it.
3. Costs have skyrocketed while expectations around men being providers have not changed. While there are a decent amount of men who probably are toxically attached to some idea of being a provider - most men I’ve met would kill for a wife who made significantly more than them. Men typically hate working too. Almost all have resigned and have just accepted that the only way she will contribute is either by her parents giving a ton of money or she will work her job that pays nowhere near as much as his. There are, of course, a good amount of similarly earning couples but for single men - you’re not often choosing your equal when out dating. Hypergamy, etc.
The American government is picking winners at very high rates. If you are a native American, here's money and jobs and special rights. If you're a black woman, here is a paid for down payment and mortgage, highly paid jobs, etc.
We need to shrink the government dramatically to get back our individual rights and freedoms. Or young men will continue to opt out of the unfair game.