Finished a fantastic new book - Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why it Matters, and What to Do about It.

Submitted by Dawens t3_y3tdrd in books

If you’re seeking non-fiction, I can’t recommend this book enough. This fascinating and important read discusses the crisis of the decline and struggle of young men (especially young black men) that’s unfolding right before us and no one seems willing to address it, let alone discuss it out of fear of being lambasted and slimed as a sexist, chauvinist, and misogynist. The author, Richard Reeves, provides a panoply of stats, data points, policies, and drivers showcasing the sheer outperformance of women across all facets of society. Women are outperforming men in school, from elementary to post-graduate. Women are dominating several job industries and sectors while simultaneously closing the gap on those historically dominated by men. Women are, in general, healthier and living longer, while men are rapidly falling into depression, suicide, drug-overdoses, and alcohol-related illnesses. Reeves praises and supports the huge leaps and achievements of gender equality for women, but argues a society that has half of its population thriving and the other half struggling is a broken and nonfunctional society. This dovetails with NYU Professor Scott Galloway’s new book, which says that an increase in the number of broke, uneducated, and alone men will produce more susceptibility to insane and dangerous ideologies and consipracy theories, and violence in the form of homicide, rape, and mass shootings.

Reeves reviews the political discourse that’s poisoned our society the past several years. The left has vilified and turned their backs on men, and mistakenly and stupidly treated all forms of masculinity as “toxic”. The right has embraced men and masculinity, but at the expense of women (and transgender people), as they feverishly attempt to wind the clocks back to the “good ole’ days” when women were treated as property. This explains the explosive popularity of men like Jordan Peterson, Josh Hawley, and Andrew Tate who pose a danger to shaping the minds of young men and their perception and treatment of women. Both sides have handled gender equality as a zero sum game, which has only derailed progress to true gender equality and a robust society and economy.

Reeves offers a few solutions and suggestions to address the malaise of men without sacrificing the progress of women. To name one: Since girls neurologically develop and mature faster than boys, girls have outperformed boys in virtually every academic performance measure. To level the playing field, Reeves suggests starting boys a year or two later in Pre-K to allow their brains to mature and catch up to girls.

EDIT: Ostensibly several people have taken issue with the statement that women are “thriving”. To echo what the Joker says in the Dark Knight as he holds onto Rachel Dawes as she hangs off the side of Bruce Wayne’s penthouse apartment before ultimately letting go, “Very poor choice of words.” I’d like to substitute it for: Women are on an upwards trajectory in academics and the labor market, while men are on a downwards trajectory.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_isaaqgu wrote

>Reeves reviews the political discourse that’s poisoned our society the past several years. The left has vilified and turned their backs on men, and mistakenly and stupidly treated all forms of masculinity as “toxic”.

This right here is enough to tell me that this book isn't worth reading, seeing as how the author doesn't understand what toxic masculinity is.

54

Dawens OP t1_isaf385 wrote

Check out The Atlantic article by Michael Salter discussing the term “toxic masculinity” and how it’s morphed overtime to become a catch-all phrase misused by both the left and right when discussing violence and sexism by men. The article aligns with the book.

3

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_isagjwi wrote

> The article aligns with the book.

So something else I shouldn't bother to read then. Especially from a guy who works with a foundation whose founder and president pushed the repressed memories and satanic panic nonsense.

9

wonderfulstoryteller t1_isajo85 wrote

You seem like someone who’s very open minded and welcoming to ideas that possibly oppose your current beliefs or what you think you know. Healthy sign of a growing and thinking person and just what we need in a divided country! Cheers!

−4

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_isako7u wrote

I'm quite open minded, up until the point where I see someone making claims that aren't based in reality.

16

wonderfulstoryteller t1_isam4m4 wrote

How can you claim something to not be based on reality without even reading it? You refuse to read a book based on one line from another Redditor’s review of the book or a news article based on the actions of the president? Every writer and journalist of The Atlantic is invalid and wrong, and seemingly complicit and guilty by association? That’s pretty ridiculous, no? Doesn’t seem open minded at all. Cheers.

−7

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_isamnue wrote

> How can you claim something to not be based on reality without even reading it?

I read the review; that was enough to determine the author wasn't arguing in good faith.

>news article based on the actions of the president?

I actually read the editorial piece that was suggested. The author is arguing based on a definition of toxic masculinity that dates back to the 80s, and not how it is used today.

> Every writer and journalist of The Atlantic is invalid and wrong, and seemingly complicit and guilty by association?

Nice strawman argument you have that. Why don't you actually argue against what I said?

16

chrispd01 t1_isatmkl wrote

Well you are taking what someone has said about something someone has written and making some assumptions. I have listened to a long discussion with the author and I think you are maybe being unfairly dismissive.. you should give him a listen and the decide

1

[deleted] t1_isbp9af wrote

[removed]

−1

CrazyCatLady108 t1_isbw4ni wrote

Personal conduct

Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.

1

RD__III t1_isajzfu wrote

>how the author doesn't understand what toxic masculinity is.

More so, you don't understand how it's being used erroneously. Things like "going to the gym" or "playing sports in school" are being labelled as toxic masculinity. It is important to understand that things can be masculine and not inherently bad, and that is a message many people don't understand.

−6

Katerade44 t1_isbilyb wrote

No reasonable person, let alone the majority of the left, is claiming that those things are toxic. Stop with the overstatements.

15

pedestrianpinniped t1_isckrzn wrote

It doesn't need to be the majority to be a problem. Unreasonable minorities on both sides get all the spotlight thanks to social media algorithms and are thus affecting our kids. You are literally doing the "Not all men argument" here FFS, so blind.

−7

Katerade44 t1_isckwha wrote

No, I am saying it isn't a real thing.

9

pedestrianpinniped t1_iscyf18 wrote

you got half a thread of people that beg to differ. Guess they are all liars an only your experiences are valid, my mistake.

−3

Katerade44 t1_iscynlg wrote

No one but that one person is claiming that normal activities for any gender such as going to the gym are being labeled "toxic masculinity." That is the claim that I am saying is absurd and is not happening.

4

pedestrianpinniped t1_isdckoh wrote

Literally all of society assumes gym bros are toxic, it's basically a meme at this point.

0

Katerade44 t1_isdhgdw wrote

There is a difference between going to the gym and being a "gym bro." Again, so long as the person isn't actually displaying toxic masculinity by other behaviors, then no one gives a f*** if they frequent the gym.

3

pedestrianpinniped t1_isdph5n wrote

Yeah no one ever stereotypes they always wait to consider the totality of a persons behavior how silly of me.

1

Katerade44 t1_isdpxw2 wrote

There are stereotypes about literally every group of people. Are you seriously making the argument that anyone truly thinks that just going to the gym makes anyone a sexist a-hole? C'mon now.

1

[deleted] t1_isakkao wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_isalmyb wrote

[removed]

3

left4ched t1_isacq8a wrote

>The left has vilified and turned their backs on men, and mistakenly and stupidly treated all forms of masculinity as “toxic”. The right has embraced men and masculinity,

Patently untrue. The rigid gender roles that box young men in and deny them the freedom of expression they need to cope with their problems come from traditional conservative attitudes of masculinity.

"You need to be a man" vs "It's ok to be yourself." Which advice do you think is more useful to a struggling young man? Which one gives them a narrow line to walk and which gives them freedom to find their own way out? And which one do you hear most often from the left or right?

42

RD__III t1_isal4r9 wrote

Then why have suicide rates been consistently going up for the past couple decades?

As a man, It's really tough. You either go with the right where you have to "be a man" and have all these antiquated values thrown at your face, or you go with the left where "It's okay to be yourself*" (* unless yourself is anything that happens to actually align with traditional masculinity, at which point you need to change).

I've personally been shamed for multiple hobbies & personality traits that just so happen to align with conservative/traditional examples of masculinity, even though it's what makes me happy.

2

iknownothin_ t1_isbhsw5 wrote

>(* unless yourself is anything that happens to actually align with traditional masculinity, at which point you need to change).

Idk what kind of people you hang out with but this has never been my experience with the left lol. I’ve never seen them have an issue with masculinity in general — it’s only when it becomes toxic.

Nobody is telling traditionally masculine men that they need to change, they are telling them that they are now free to change

13

lastchance12 t1_isbnxfj wrote

Can you give an example of something you have been shamed for?

I have been gently ribbed for certain things, like being in a fantasy football league for example, but it generally has felt good natured, thankfully.

11

RD__III t1_isboi1m wrote

>Can you give an example of something you have been shamed for?

Personally, I go to an IFBB gym, and have gotten multiple comments about it. Not at all because of my behavior, just because I go to a certain gym.

Also, I used to shoot competitively (archery) and still shoot recreationally (archery as well as firearms). the amount of "compensating for something" and "must have a small dick" comments is sort of crazy.

I've certainly got a lot of more light hearted shit I don't really mind about things like the gym, FF as well, video games, etc, but there's definitely a distinct difference.

1

Dazzling--00 t1_isc6fo7 wrote

Do you think comments about your archery "compensating for something" were enough to make you feel suicidal? Sorry, but is that the extent of it? I can browse this website for 5 minutes and see more toxic comments about women.

0

pedestrianpinniped t1_isck83r wrote

>Moderators

And it would take me 30 someone saying all men are trash. What is your point it's not a competition. The difference is most of western society is against misogyny but misandry is met with YES queen yesssss preachhh.

−1

Katerade44 t1_isczhk7 wrote

No, mysandry (a much less common aspect of society) is held up as an excuse for MRA to try to put both all genders into narrow boxes of traditional gender norms.

2

Dazzling--00 t1_ise89ke wrote

I don't see it. The "Yes queen" language you mention is usually on social media - that's not really feminism, just people talking. Social media is pretty toxic in general, sadly.

1

notorious98 t1_isbnvyy wrote

Strawmen and anecdotal evidence.

Name a more iconic garbage argument duo.

5

Dawens OP t1_isb0ovv wrote

This isn’t solely a US phenomenon. If you’re seeing waves and droves of young men fleeing to the right on a global scale, whether it’s in South Korea or Western Europe, that should sound the blaring alarm that something is wrong. Ignoring this issue or reflexively and lazily dismissing it as “anti-feminist” hate and misogyny will only widen the gender divide and empower those who are far more dangerous to women’s rights and progress, and society as a whole.

2

RD__III t1_isb18er wrote

It sucks, because as a guy who is traditionally masculine, but also believes people don't *need* to be, I don't really feel welcome or respected on either side. Hell, I honestly feel more accepted and respected by the crazy MAGA crowd.

1

Katerade44 t1_isbj1ww wrote

As long as being "traditionally masculine" doesn't make you a jerk, no one on the left will have a problem with you. This hyperbole is so strange.

9

ViskerRatio t1_isd6jme wrote

> Which advice do you think is more useful to a struggling young man?

To most young men? "You need to be a man" is far more useful advice.

These 'rigid gender roles' didn't just pop into existence like magic. They're the result of millennia of human experience. Do they apply well to everyone? No. But the fact that they're almost universal across human experience - bridging cultures that never had any contact with one another - should give you a clue that maybe there's an actual reason they exist beyond a mere quirk of our particular society.

Basically, you're trying to 'femsplain' how men work. There's a reason that boys raised without a father struggle so much in life - and it's because all they have are mothers that presume little boys think just like little girls. Well, some do. But most don't - and they are poorly served by treating them as little girls when they aren't.

−1

HallonWriter t1_isdpbiy wrote

>"You need to be a man" is far more useful advice.

Literally the most useless advice I could ever think of.

Completely meaningless without further explaining, hard to understand for someone who isn't one yet, easily misinterpreted unless the view of what is a good man is steadily reinforced, applied to millions who are in fact poor rolemodels and very bad examples to follow, making it a uselessly wide group to be a part of.

Maybe consider something with even an ounce of actual insight instead?

4

iknownothin_ t1_isabf5o wrote

I’ve read this book and it’s not as nuanced as this post is making it seem. It gives off “mens rights” vibes and is right leaning

30

Dawens OP t1_isacorj wrote

What about it leans right? Specific data he discussed or policies he suggests?

−3

iknownothin_ t1_isact62 wrote

The way in which he frames the data or suggestions can come across as more right leaning

9

Dawens OP t1_isadspz wrote

Still not sure what you mean. Is it when he discusses biological differences or statements such as men are naturally bigger risk takers and aggressive?

−3

el_toro7 t1_isbmm3r wrote

I like how you're being downvoted for asking straightforward questions

9

Timely-Huckleberry73 t1_isbqvg0 wrote

Op asks reasonable and specific questions: gets downvoted.

Commenter makes vague, dismissive statements and refuses to give examples to clarify what they are talking about: gets upvoted

8

Joe_Doe1 t1_iscaiq5 wrote

This is the way it goes now. Anyone who even vaguely challenges the progressive orthodoxy must be down voted until their comment collapses.

4

Apprehensive-Row5876 t1_iseuon0 wrote

Nah, just because the sub and most of Reddit happens to be left-leaning doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on against the right. If you went to a right-wing sub and made a somewhat leftist take you'd also get downvoted to hell. People are biased no matter their political views

1

Joe_Doe1 t1_isfmdvt wrote

I agree with you. Bias exists on both sides and it's bad for all of us when a right or left wing orthodoxy takes over.

1

Officer_Warr t1_isaq5h2 wrote

> argues a society that has half of its population thriving and the other half struggling is a broken and nonfunctional society.

To suggest women are "thriving" because they are catching up in equal representation is complete nonsense. Just because engineering fields went from 10:1 M:F to 4:1 doesn't mean they are thriving. Just because parts of the medical field has a higher representation of women doesn't mean they are thriving.

> To level the playing field, Reeves suggests starting boys a year or two later in Pre-K to allow their brains to mature and catch up to girls.

That doesn't even make sense. What they're suggesting doesn't "level" the playing field nor let boys "catch up". It's basically a facade to show academic equivalency even though female students would still be outperforming relevant to their age group throughout the entirety of education. We don't need to create a fake distribution looking even; if girls outperform boys in grade school on average, so be it. Evaluate case-by-case and if the bottom nth % of the class needs remedial education, and happens to be boys, so be it.

28

Dawens OP t1_isayrc5 wrote

Poor choice of words in the use “thriving”, admittedly. I should have instead said that women are on an upwards trajectory and men are on a downward trajectory in academics, the labor market, and health. And to repeat, this isn’t and shouldn’t be a zero sum game. Lifting one gender up doesn’t require to drag the other down. Both can win. The economic and social reality have changed for the better and men have struggled to adapt. And as I stated previously, neither party has provided an adequate guide or anchor to do so.

As far as redshirting boys early in school, there’s good evidence provided in the book that this is a boon for boys at no cost for girls. Most importantly, it decreases the % of high school and college dropouts of young men, who are substantially at higher risk to do so than young women, which reduces the negative impact on their job prospects, wealth, marriage, and fatherhood. Allowing a large % of one gender to fall off the cliff is simply not a good idea.

4

pedestrianpinniped t1_iscap4d wrote

Ok so we won't worry about getting women into politics STEM and the C suite either. If boys outperform girls on average so be it.

2

ApplephobicDR t1_isake8p wrote

>Reeves praises and supports the huge leaps and achievements of gender equality for women, but argues a society that has half of its population thriving and the other half struggling is a broken and nonfunctional society

Wait, we are thriving?

21

notorious98 t1_isbo70t wrote

Didn't you know?

10

ApplephobicDR t1_isbom1s wrote

Why am I always the last one knowing those things? Girls I’ve already told you to informe me in the « plan for world domination » snap group that we are all part of.

1

FullAhjosu12 t1_isapon1 wrote

I think the point might be on the track that things are headed we could see a day where women are thriving while men are struggling. I was at a state robotics competition about 6 years ago. Our state has been rightly focusing on recruiting more women into STEM. One I have actively supported on my own teams. At the competition the organizer announced that we had doubled our female numbers in two years and could boast 40% girls participating. To much applause. I was excited as well. He then followed that up with in 5 years let’s see those numbers go to 60% which had equal applause and more. It baffles me because this would imply that we no longer want boys to equally participate. I joked with the organizer later won’t it be crazy in 30-50 years when we have to start hosting MEN in STEM activities to get more boys involved? I am all for equality and expanding what opportunities women have access to. I actively recruit my female students into STEM fields. So maybe not thriving yet but trajectories are in place. They don’t need to be removed a lot of the programs are good and need to continue.

1

Dawens OP t1_isb2f1p wrote

Reeves pushes for men to enter HEAL jobs, which include healthcare, education, administrative, and literacy, fields dominated by women. So as women increasingly enter the STEM fields, men should increasingly enter jobs in healthcare and education, two of the most important industries facing dire shortages, e.g. nursing and teaching.

1

FullAhjosu12 t1_isb6uuh wrote

That’s interesting. I think it makes a lot of sense. More men in teaching would be beneficial for so many reasons.

2

hydrosylator t1_isbglce wrote

>Reeves praises and supports the huge leaps and achievements of gender equality for women, but argues a society that has half of its population thriving and the other half struggling is a broken and nonfunctional society.

Jesus fucking Christ.

There's so many false precepts, but that one is the winner.

11

FullAhjosu12 t1_isaqvqi wrote

Thank you for the suggestion. I will pick it up. I have been in education for a while and it has been interesting watching this exact shift he is talking about over really just the last 10-12 years. From a school point of view boys typically make up 60-70% of referrals, the majority of the SPED classrooms. As mentioned girls are enrolling in college at higher rates, making up majority numbers of honor roll. As a parent watching my daughter go through and get the praise and support that she has from teachers and now seeing my son and how he gets far more negative responses it has been interesting. We did hold my son back and a year and we are glad. Can’t imagine him being a year younger in his grade. He would be drowning.

Without having read it I suspect that some people feel like anything that borders on old man empowerment falls in the category of right leaning. Just as anything that falls in the category of equal advancement for women or minorities is left leaning. It is actually possible to support the advancement of all groups at once. To want to see equal representation across all aspects.

8

wonderfulstoryteller t1_isasj3g wrote

This is the most rational and reasonable response so far lol. OP suggested a book about gender equality and is immediately met with hyper reactionary pitchforks about how he’s pushing gender inequality. It’s hilarious to see. Careful, the pitchforks will be coming for you and your sons too.

7

Katerade44 t1_isd3zew wrote

>It is actually possible to support the advancement of all groups at once. To want to see equal representation across all aspects.

That is feminism. It has always boggled my mind that a philosophy seeking to empower all genders is seen as anti-men.

1

FullAhjosu12 t1_isdf5fs wrote

There are some that live in a scarcity mindset and therefore to give something to someone would mean taking stuff away from another. I honestly am not sure how I feel about that sentiment. I like to believe in abundance but sometimes I am not sure. Regardless I believe it is time for the advancement of more groups.

1

Katerade44 t1_isdjafn wrote

This isn't about scarcity. To blame the slight rise in women's social and economic welfare for men, especially minority men, not having equity is just an insane take. That's what this book is trying to claim. This isn't about men v. women. This is about oppressive power structures largely created and propped up by white men being incrementally dismantled while many white men scramble to continue tear down any attempts at equity.

1

wonderfulstoryteller t1_isej6e4 wrote

There’s no blame on women’s progress. Op literally says the author says this was a good thing. Pointing out the fact that women have made huge gains academically and in financial independence, while men have fallen downwards isn’t blaming women lol. As for as power structures, sure, rich white dudes have made it tough for everyone, including and especially black men, which the book covers a great deal and points out they have it worse than any other demographic. But of course this entire sub wants to ignore that and cry about sexism when this book is anti sexism. Fucking unbelievable.

−1

Katerade44 t1_isel3nw wrote

Unbelievable? With the amount of MRA bullshit out there and one fan boy's description of a book. Nah. It's totally believable.

1

Katerade44 t1_iscz2ya wrote

I highly recommend more balanced works that address specific issues, not this blanket treatise.

0

FullAhjosu12 t1_isd18qo wrote

Do you have a recommendation then? My experience has always been that most are fairly specific.

2

Katerade44 t1_isd3qz5 wrote

This book is a broad treatise. As for specific, it depends on your specific concerns: education, suicide rates, job demographics, etc.

0

SapphiraBlackwood t1_isd1pq6 wrote

Maybe I haven't seen enough of his content, but how did Jordan Peterson end up getting lumped in with Andrew Tate?

8

ButterscotchSure6589 t1_iscd613 wrote

I'm a modern male and I'm not struggling with my masculinity or maleness, nor are any of my family friends or acquaintances, they may be struggling financially or have relationship problems, but angst developed from pointles navel gazing isnt there, they dont have time, too busy with work, family and friends. These sorts of books are aimed at a very narrow demographic which most men don't belong too. Dont convince yourself you're a victim if you are not.

5

wonderfulstoryteller t1_isebczz wrote

A majority of the book is about black men and young men in general in the lower rungs socioeconomically. Lol that ain’t a “narrow demographic” but ok.

3

JusticeCat88905 t1_isasvti wrote

I have the absolute best advice for men that doesn’t require a book. Stop being a misogynist. Women are human beings and they aren’t meaningfully different from men so stop treating them like sexual objects to be captured and conquered and start being friends with women, and you will see the quality of your social life increase tenfold. It’s really that simple.

2

RD__III t1_isb6f1j wrote

>I have the absolute best advice for men that doesn’t require a book. Stop being a misogynist.

And this shit is why people like Andrew Tate get a following.

8

JusticeCat88905 t1_isb70r8 wrote

Our society teaches men to treat women as objects. It’s because of this that they can’t have meaningful relationships with women, and it’s because of the lack of those relationships they are unhappy and that reinforces their belief that women are objects. The only thing that can be done about this is conscious self analysis and the raising of consciousness about your own beliefs to deprogram the harmful ideas about human society that people like Tate push that are not new, they are simply the recitation of the default perspective instilled in the west.

7

RD__III t1_isb9agk wrote

What sort of bullshit is this? "dating life" Isn't even one of the top causes, let alone the single biggest. Causes such as

  1. lack of acceptance of emotional expression

  2. lack of emotional communication

  3. lack of support structures

  4. financial pressures and hardship

  5. lack of emotional acceptance (E.G. You)

are all larger causes than "can't get a girlfriend". This is a large and complex issue, and trying to twist this into some victim blaming chauvinist bullshit about objectification is insane.

8

notorious98 t1_isbp8j6 wrote

All problems exacerbated by the fact that toxic masculinity has told boys and young men that showing your feelings is a "woman's trait".

Also, everybody has financial pressures and hardships, women included. In 2018, women (12.9%) lived in higher rates of poverty compared to men (10.6%).

7

RD__III t1_isbpgko wrote

>All problems exacerbated by the fact that toxic masculinity has told boys and young men that showing your feelings is a "woman's trait".

And that's not moving the goal posts at all. We went from "Women are objects" to "woman's traits" real damn quick.

2

notorious98 t1_isbpnre wrote

That's a lot of words you put together. You sure that you understand what they mean within the context of what I said?

2

RD__III t1_isbpzel wrote

>You sure that you I understand

Pretty sure this isn't even a proper English sentence, so I certainly didn't understand this.

I also realize you aren't the person I was initially discussing with, which makes you totally changing directions seem a lot more logical.

1

notorious98 t1_isbqgx7 wrote

>Pretty sure this isn't even a proper English sentence

Oh no, a typo that was already corrected.

However, if you couldn't understand what was written because of a single erroneous "I", it's not "the left" that's causing you to have problems in life.

3

Dazzling--00 t1_iscabx0 wrote

Many of the things you mention are things that are affecting society in general. In Western countries, there are fewer community groups and societal structures, and more emphasis on the individual. That means individuals face immense pressure to "succeed", at the same time they're being placed in increasingly difficult situations where they have no chance of succeeding. The cost of living, housing affordability, lower wages and more. Add to that the climate crisis, the toxic nature of online communities, online disinformation, the lack of ways to meet potential partners, the lack of meaning - it's difficult for everyone.

The more we fight each other the worse it becomes. I think we're at a time when we need to recognise our similarities and work together. Blaming women, boomers, "them" and so on doesn't work. It's all of us.

I don't support the men's rights movement as it is, not because I don't support men, but because it seeks to portray men primarily as victims in search of a perpetrator. Ironically, I think it often seeks to diminish men's agency. It strongly suggests there are societal forces trying to keep men down. It's often not clearly stated who or what these forces are and disaffected men can then start to see enemies everywhere: teachers, other students, women in general, institutions, the left, the right, mainstream media, government, etc. I would suggest this is the ideological foundation that starts to weaponise young men. It could easily be exploited by anyone seeking to destabilise a nation or society.

Instead of squabbling online we can come together in real life to make the world a better place.

2

JusticeCat88905 t1_isb9hu1 wrote

It’s all part of the same structure, interpersonal relationships (I’m not specifying romantic relationships here btw) is just a good example of how this plays out.

0

RD__III t1_isba9jb wrote

please stop this chauvinistic bullshit. Not all issues in society can be rooted out as men objectifying women. There can be more than one cause of issues, and not everything revolves around what you think is most important.

4

abigailxo94 t1_isbzt31 wrote

It's clear that men have an issue with accountability.

−1

BreakingBaldAmirite t1_isb00n7 wrote

Turns out all men's issues are actually just us being bad and not treating women correctly! Thank you! Why didn't anyone else think of this

0

JusticeCat88905 t1_isb5blj wrote

Yea actually. Basically it comes down to asking yourself why you believe the things you believe, and where those beliefs come from. You will find that the same structural institutions that men struggle against are the same ones reinforcing their beliefs that make them unable to struggle against those institutions effectively. Being a misogynist makes your life harder, being a homophobe makes your life harder.

−1

BreakingBaldAmirite t1_isb8fj9 wrote

> Yea actually. Basically it comes down to asking yourself why you believe the things you believe

The absolute fucking demon that you are who thinks only people that believe certain things struggle, and end up with mental health issues and suicide.

3

JusticeCat88905 t1_isb9aji wrote

At no point have I said this what a wild leap to take. The reason this person sees the left as “attacking masculinity” as a problem is because he sees traditional masculinity as the default rather than something socially constructed and most of the “lefts attacks” are simply challenging that construction as being the default and rather than questioning the legitimacy of traditionalism as the default their reaction to these “attacks” are to dig themselves further into the anti social behaviors that make them already so harmful.

6

BreakingBaldAmirite t1_isb9u9l wrote

"It's all your fault lol".

1

JusticeCat88905 t1_isbaz5y wrote

No it’s patriarchy’s fault but systems exist on both a systemic and individual level. Individuals can’t do much about changing systems without first changing their mind and organizing with eachother to change systems.

5

BreakingBaldAmirite t1_isbb76h wrote

So true bestie, we will not work on the issues such as suicide, and focus on your rhetoric, which is "stop being a misogynist and I get to decide what that is". Which will: get us nowhere, do the opposite of saving lives (but I can tell you've managed to abstract such petty things).

I'm glad I get to get some fresh air and see some real people later tonight, the internet is exhausting and I can easily see how it drives people into insanity.

1

JusticeCat88905 t1_isbbdkc wrote

So you think fighting “the lefts attacks on masculinity” is doing anything about suicide? Have you read this guys post?

3

BreakingBaldAmirite t1_isbby6i wrote

No, I think that guy is trying to sell books, and doesn't care either. I'm challenging your specific comment, and never even implied I agree with the original post.

Thankfully, a demon waving the red or blue flag doesn't blind me to them being a demon, desperate to feast on my blood.

4

JusticeCat88905 t1_isbcnud wrote

The ideas Patriarchy instills in men harms men full stop. That’s the argument.

3

BreakingBaldAmirite t1_isbicbc wrote

So you're just gonna strip the entire bit where you say "be nicer to women and everything's gonna be better!", and the "maybe if they weren't supportive of the patriarchy they'd stop suffering!", as if it's not the entire reason I challenged your take in the first place? Heavily implying that the people who suffer, kill themselves, or express their frustrations in some way are actually just bad people (of course this will be a "leap" in logic for you, even if it's the logical next step). Then you had that weird bit about homophobia as if homosexuals aren't in even bigger danger of self-harm, carefully exposing the internet bubble you apparently live in, possibly due to being banished from Earth a few thousand years ago.

> The ideas Patriarchy instills in men harms men full stop.

Guys, it's the patriarchy, but it just happens to be that the line between the suffering and the beneficiaries can be drawn at an economical class level better than at a sex level.

You don't understand why these young men suffer. You don't understand (or care) why they're in pain and most of all you're concerned with your own goals. Ironically, this it the same level of compassion they get in their daily lives, and why they suffer in the first place.

2

JusticeCat88905 t1_isbkvki wrote

So most of the first part is just absurd and doesn’t even address anything I’ve said really. To jump from me saying “behavior enforced and rewarded by patriarchy harms men” to “I think men who kill themselves are bad people” when at no point have I even discussed suicide, and there are huge gaps that you need to fill to get from A to B just saying “that’s the natural conclusion” isn’t enough when you don’t even understand the point I’m making.

What’s funny about you identifying class as being more impactful than patriarchy is you ignore than patriarchy is a product and tool of class oppression, which is why consciousness is required to overcome these issues, because they are largely products of the contradictions between a class society and liberation, and even seeing that requires at least a basic level of class consciousness and or historical material analysis

2

expolife t1_iscl9ix wrote

The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love offers an important perspective on all of this that gets to the root of the issue. We neglect the emotional needs of boys and men which is a form of abuse and this contributes to ADHD and other developmental disorders that compound especially for boys coming from less resourced backgrounds. From what I understand, the book Of Boys and Men points out that boys and girls from middle class and upper class backgrounds tend to perform similarly. It’s particularly boys from lower income and more patriarchal backgrounds who struggle the most.

2

_packet_sniffer_ t1_isdywro wrote

Lol OP try not to get disheartened by all the overblown outrage here... But also pretty sure posts arent supposed to be political in /r/books and the author seems to be waging into culture war topics. I'm glad u got some insights from the book.

2

Pretty_Fairy_Dust t1_ise34mc wrote

Yes in some aspects men are looked down on like when they are being emotional or in cases of rape. But this is because of the patriarchy. The whole "men need to be strong" and "women have to be submissive and weak" is because of the patriarchy.

Also women are thriving really? Then explain to me the sheer amount of murders/rapes/assault cases that are happening against women today.

Explain to me how Women are thriving when we are scared to walk alone at night.

Explain to me how Women are thriving when if we report a rapist they will protect them because "it was just a mistake" or if the rapist gets punished they will get a very small sentence.

Explain to me how Women are thriving when almost all women will experience some sort of sexual assault in their lifetime.

Also the whole "girls mature faster than boys" is such a dangerous and outdated thing to just throw around.

2

Katerade44 t1_isdjcbw wrote

To blame the slight rise in women's social and economic welfare for men, especially minority men, not having equity is just an insane take. That's what this book is trying to claim. This isn't about men v. women. This is about oppressive power structures largely created and propped up by white men being incrementally dismantled while many white men scramble to continue tear down any attempts at equity.

1

TFTilted t1_isd3pv1 wrote

Man, they're going to crucify you for this post, if I know the political biases of this subreddit. You're basically in a radical feminist sub, you know. They will hate you for speaking the truth.

−1

SunStockMan t1_isclk6g wrote

The Feminization of the American male has been going on for 30 years. Liberal left wing has been following the Saul Alinsky handbook. Much easier to overthrow a government when the men are afraid to fight

−4

SunStockMan t1_iscl7e2 wrote

The feminization of the American male has been a project of the liberal left for the past 30 years - Following the Saul Alinsky handbook. Makes it much easier to over throw a country when the men are afraid to fight

−7

masoyama t1_isa94y5 wrote

Men that are "failing" are usually pretty pathetic to start with. They went from having 100% of the societal advantage to only like 80% and their solution is to kill themselves or become fascist. Sad, whiny babies.

−16

Morasain t1_isaanw6 wrote

Class has much more of an impact than any other kind of demographic. If you're poor, you have no societal advantages, no matter your gender.

Also, nice, sexism and suicide shaming.

8

Dawens OP t1_isac577 wrote

Poor black men do substantially worse than poor black women. A disturbingly large % of white people perceive black men as criminals. Their job prospects are worse than any other demographic. Their rate of incarceration is worse than any other demographic.

4

Dawens OP t1_isab9oy wrote

So the enormous % of young black men are fundementally “pretty pathetic” and “sad, whiny babies”? Not very constructive insight, and it’s sadly dismissive and a testament to the muddied discourse surrounding the subject. This book is especially for you :)

5