109

A Different Way of Being a Man (jacobin.com)

submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zier@fedia.io 32 points 2 months ago

I'm super annoyed by this "how to be a man" stuff the press pushes right now. Walz is being a normal, well adjusted human being. This should not be about gender. Harris is also being a well adjusted human being, compared to trump who is a toxic fuck. And women can be just as toxic (see MAGA women). I realize that 'toxic masculinity' is real, but women can act exactly the same way. We need to stop dividing people by gender and then blaming their gender for the behavior. A shitty person is a shitty person. Call it what it is, stop blaming vaginas & penises.

[-] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

I totally agree in principle, but to give this particular article the benefit of the doubt, I feel they're specifically trying to directly counter right wing talking points. So rather than saying "being a man is meaningless" to a bunch of people who feel strongly about male identity, they're instead saying "there's more than one way to man. Here's a good male role model now!" to try and reach some middle dudes who are conflicted and getting preyed upon.

I agree that in the fullness of time we shouldn't focus on this stuff, but I'm a bit worried about perfect being the enemy of good, and continuing to preach to our choir while 40% of dudes fall into a belief that women are the enemy and need to be controlled and shit.

[-] Machinist@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Ehh. There is a particular sickness among white men. It's a failure of masculinity. It's also a failure by the Left.

Men are screeched at about toxic masculinity, especially young men. Many societal ills are blamed on white men, (hell, I blame them, rightfully so).

The Right welcomes them with open arms, tells them it's a liberal conspiracy. It fills their heads with empty hate and silly alpha/beta crap.

The Left says not much in the way of what positive masculinity should look like.

Men experience heightened levels of anger, aggression, mature later, poor impulse control. This is a natural part of having a male hormonal system. Without a good support system and role models, this can lead to ugly places for young men. When it's young white men, the Right scoops them up.

The men that look like me, talk like me, have interests like me almost always have abhorrent political beliefs and are full of conspiracy theories. I'm a redneck and often hate my own people. It's like the self hating Jews or black folks you hear about.

Positive white masculinity is absolutely in crisis in America. I don't know what the answer is, but it is absolutely a problem that affects all genders, orientations, and minorities. It's a problem because white men hold so much power and will continue to have that power for a long time.

The Right has won the hearts and minds of many white men. The Left needs to pull its head out of its ass and figure out a strategy to win back at least some of these men. It needs to help young white men grow into manhood in a positive way.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Walz as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in an age when so many men have been “red-pilled” into reactionary politics — and with Vance as the other ticket’s comparison — is a real opportunity for a different vision of masculinity to culturally take root.

In many ways, an excellent article, but I do take minor issue with the way it is framed here.

I think that this different version of masculinity was always there, culturally. I think it was because if it wasn't men like Walz would not exist already. Many men like this do and many men like this did. I think it does them a bit of a disservice to talk about their masculinity as though it's not culturally accepted. Rather, it's like the article discusses, the left just fails to meaningfully describe these men and why their masculinity is good and what you should aim for. Meanwhile Walz is seemingly actually fairly good at, if not necessarily articulating why his version of masculinity is good, showing why is it good.

Which is also I think an aspect of why we forget that these men were always there culturally. Traditionally, these men have often been quiet stewards, not the kind of men who would seek any kind of media attention. So while the manosphere festered with freaks who simply won't shut the fuck up with outright drivel, misogyny, and racism, these men have simply been... existing, being good fathers, uncles, and brothers in their families, not trying to win awards or accolades.

EDIT: For example, I think there are many more Joe Peras out there than people think.

[-] Raglesnarf@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

it's not really related but when I think about being a "man" this quote from Pip (South Park) comes to mind

"Well, I've certainly learned a lot. That being a gentleman doesn't mean learning to dance, or proper table manners. It means being a gentle man. Gentle to everyone."

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Those two sure know how to inject some wisdom in the complete randomness of that show sometimes.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

You mean the right way and the wrong way. I would much rather display Tim’s big dad energy with compassion and empathy than the bullshit Vance is doing. Vance just comes off a spineless little weasel with no real moral compass.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

Jacobin - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Jacobin:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://jacobin.com/2024/09/walz-vance-masculinity-gen-z

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024

109 points (92.9% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3227 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News