Democrats are losing young men?

[Emerald]

31 minutes ago, Consept said:

I genuinely don't believe they're more masculine, they've painted the leftist guys in a certain way, but the insecurity from the right is palpable. I also think their stiffness and inflexibility, to me anyway, makes them seem very weak. 

Even the younger guys like sneako, adin ross etc don't seem masculine at all. Tbh though I don't think a lot of traditionally masculine guys would be on stream for hours on end, that medium attracts less masculine guys

I totally agree with this. There are many men who have internalized the message that they aren't Masculine enough. 

And so, they look for guys who they think 'fit the bill' of Masculinity. And the guys who uptalk the value of "becoming more Masculine" tend to attract a lot of these guys who feel like they need to look to external role models to "increase" their Masculinity.

[Consept]

20 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Interesting stuff, thanks. I always wonder what's going on in an anti-establishment context around the world, and especially in other western countries. You might be surprised how little US news talks about international affairs.

No worries man, your questions push me to think about these issues, which I appreciate. I agree with you, I don't even think most Americans could name the current UK prime minister. 

 

22 minutes ago, What Am I said:

That's surprisingly low. Though I wonder if a lack of familiarity would play a part. It's not like Trump campaigns in the UK. I imagine when polled, most people in the US wouldn't know what to think of the UK prime minister either.

It's slightly different, most of the Europe does pay attention to US politics, at least to the extent where they'll know who's running in the election. Yeah it seems a little low, but the reform party got 14% of the vote at the last election as I said they're headed by Farage who is the closest we have to Trump so it is probably quite accurate. That isn't to say that we couldn't be manipulated because it did happen with the brexit vote. I do think that would be harder to pull off again though because brexit has been a shit show and a lot pf people regret voting for it. Fool me once type of thing. 

9 minutes ago, whh2222 said:

sneako is a punk. no if ands or buts about that. Adin is too, but especially sneako. Those guys are shells of a human being 

Yep it is quite sad actually, don't really get sneako as he had a good family life, but something has happened there. 

 

6 minutes ago, whh2222 said:

I find this the most interesting. Trump at one point ran as a dem and campaigned for gay rights. he is as interchangeable as it suits him. I believe that many people on a subconscious level understand that

Yeah it's interesting, Trumps main driver is fame and adulation, he's willing to do whatever for it and sell to the highest bidder. His whole business has been licensing his name, he doesn't care what they do with it as long as he gets what he wants. It's the same with becoming president, he leverages it and he doesn't care who uses the power. He would've run as a dem if they would've had him 

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

Think of Sam Seder, David Pakman, Cenk Ugyer, David Doel, Destiny, Hasan Piker, Vaush, etc. 

All of these guys are either equally Masculine or more Masculine compared to Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Nick Fuentes, Dennis Prager, Dave Rubin, Andrew Tate, etc.

Not in terms of worldview.

The first group has a worldview that is more feminine. And that's because overall they're more developed, mature, integrated individuals that don't feel threatened by it.

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

And if they weren't directly vocalizing their ideologies and talking about politics and everyone went in blind and you had these two groups of guys to observe and you could observe the way they speak and act, I don't think most people would rank the right wing group as more Masculine than the left wing group.

I disagree.

It would come out even if politics weren't specifically being discussed.

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

The Masculinity of right wing guys is kind of like the emperor's new clothes in that way.

Yes and no.

It is real masculinity. But it's just a less developed version.

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

Unless you've specifically been taught to associate Masculinity with right wing ideologies, you wouldn't read them as more Masculine than the next guy.

Yes you still would. Because right-wing ideology is more masculine. You don't need to be taught that it is. 

[Emerald]

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

Not in terms of worldview.

The first group has a worldview that is more feminine. And that's because overall they're more developed, mature, integrated individuals that don't feel threatened by it.

I disagree.

It would come out even if politics weren't specifically being discussed.

Yes and no.

It is real masculinity. But it's just a less developed version.

Yes you still would. Because right-wing ideology is more masculine. You don't need to be taught that it is. 

Maybe Masculinity is something that men are intellectually defining differently than women tend to intuitively/emotionally pick up on.

And women perhaps don't sense a greater Masculinity in right wing men compared to any other guy... while men tend to have a clearer distinction because of the ways men are collectively conditioned to conceptualize of Masculinity.

Maybe men index more on stereotypically Masculine acts that they can check off of a list, as opposed to indexing on Masculinity as an energetic vibe like women intuitively sense... especially in dating dynamics.

And the right wing worldview itself is more polarized to the Masculine principle to the exclusion the Feminine principle.

That just doesn't (to my perception) increase or amplify a man's Masculine energy or mannerisms... neither in toxic nor healthy ways.

If anything, a lot of right wing guys tend to come across as catty and petty... like mean girls.

Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh particularly have somewhat of a catty vibe that comes through in their speech and mannerisms. But I find this cattiness a lot online from right wing commentators... especially with Red Pill and Incel guys.

Interacting with them online with them throwing their arrows at women feels quite a bit like it felt to be bullied by the petty bitchy girls in middle school. It's like, when guys don't integrate their Feminine side, it comes through in negative ways. 

Like @Etherial Cat said. They come across like a bunch of spicy cats. And I just can't sense the Masculine vibes.

But really, look around on this forum and you'll find tons of right wing guys. Do you really feel like they're more Masculine (toxic or otherwise) than the next guy?

[Joshe]

7 hours ago, Consept said:

The right are still against all these things btw and would definitely want to shut them down. But what has happened is the left have become the establishment. The youth generally are attracted to anti-establishment, they often want to rebel against current systems. What's funny is that the left are only really intolerant against intolerance, they hate the idea of people being suppressed, that's really what their core value is. The right do actually want to suppress but they don't like being suppressed in their suppression of others  they want to be able to say trans shouldnt be allowed rights or gays shouldnt be proud to be gay or black people are culturally inferior, this is what it comes down to. 

So because they were losing the culture war, the right basically marketed themselves as anti-establishment, brought in these ideas that they're not free to say what they want and they're being held down and now they've somewhat successfully reversed it so that they are the cool, edgy outsiders, despite the fact their ideology is way outdated for current society. In fact it most likely would've died out but Trumps reignited them and the fact that he doesn't really share their ideology, doesn't really matter because they can channel it through him, which is the idea with project 25. 

Shhhhhh..... This can bring down their entire house of cards. NVM, who am I kidding? They'd have to contemplate it for that to happen. Carry on.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Maybe Masculinity is something that men are intellectually defining differently than women tend to intuitively/emotionally pick up on.

And women perhaps don't sense a greater Masculinity in right wing men compared to any other guy... while men tend to have a clearer distinction because of the ways men are collectively conditioned to conceptualize of Masculinity.

Maybe men index more on stereotypically Masculine acts that they can check off of a list, as opposed to indexing on Masculinity as an energetic vibe like women intuitively sense... especially in dating dynamics.

And the right wing worldview itself is more polarized to the Masculine principle to the exclusion the Feminine principle.

That just doesn't (to my perception) increase or amplify a man's Masculine energy or mannerisms... neither in toxic nor healthy ways

Maybe 

This debate is getting pretty abstract, as seems to happen a lot with you and I.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh particularly have somewhat of a catty vibe that comes through in their speech and mannerisms. But I find this cattiness a lot online from right wing commentators... especially with Red Pill and Incel guys.

Interacting with them online with them throwing their arrows at women feels quite a bit like it felt to be bullied by the petty bitchy girls in middle school. It's like, when guys don't integrate their Feminine side, it comes through in negative ways. 

Like @Etherial Cat said. They come across like a bunch of spicy cats. And I just can't sense the Masculine vibes.

But really, look around on this forum and you'll find tons of right wing guys. Do you really feel like they're more Masculine (toxic or otherwise) than the next guy?

That's because the two of you get under their skin.

I'm definitely not saying right-wing ideology makes you more mature or desirable from a dating POV. But from how I conceptualize masculinity, yes. Or at least it's more exclusively masculine, like you said above. 

[Basman]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

Maybe Masculinity is something that men are intellectually defining differently than women tend to intuitively/emotionally pick up on.

And women perhaps don't sense a greater Masculinity in right wing men compared to any other guy... while men tend to have a clearer distinction because of the ways men are collectively conditioned to conceptualize of Masculinity.

Maybe men index more on stereotypically Masculine acts that they can check off of a list, as opposed to indexing on Masculinity as an energetic vibe like women intuitively sense... especially in dating dynamics.

And the right wing worldview itself is more polarized to the Masculine principle to the exclusion the Feminine principle.

That just doesn't (to my perception) increase or amplify a man's Masculine energy or mannerisms... neither in toxic nor healthy ways.

You have to consider the environment that they might be surviving. Progressive men tend to be educated and work white collar jobs in air conditioned offices. Being "soft" and cooperative is a prerequisite for a life of bureaucracy and dependence on others to get things done. On the other hand conservative men generally tend to be blue collar, live out on the country side where they have to be independent to a certain degree and make themselves work hard. Being "soft" could get you in trouble.

For example soldiers tend to be conservative, which is no mistake. Being empathetic could get you killed. There's a logic behind the tendency of dehumanizing your enemies in war, calling Russians "orcs" in the Ukraine War or Houthis "Tusken Raiders". Its ugly and you might not agree but there's a reason that its not simply "male insecurity".

Consider that a conservative world view instills certain positive values that allow for survival in a tough environment, like work ethic and bravery which a cushy progressive first world kind of life doesn't need to same extent and therefor discards.

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

If anything, a lot of right wing guys tend to come across as catty and petty... like mean girls.

Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh particularly have somewhat of a catty vibe that comes through in their speech and mannerisms. But I find this cattiness a lot online from right wing commentators... especially with Red Pill and Incel guys.

Interacting with them online with them throwing their arrows at women feels quite a bit like it felt to be bullied by the petty bitchy girls in middle school. It's like, when guys don't integrate their Feminine side, it comes through in negative ways. 

Like @Etherial Cat said. They come across like a bunch of spicy cats. And I just can't sense the Masculine vibes.

But really, look around on this forum and you'll find tons of right wing guys. Do you really feel like they're more Masculine (toxic or otherwise) than the next guy?

That's anyone who's ideologically attached when you question their worldview. Try going into a feminist forum and challenge their views. You'll be torn down even if you are a healthy debater, factual and objective and all that.

That's also kind of the problem with being a "debater". Its essentially verbal fighting and that tends to turn one into an angry bitter person.

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Basman said:

You have to consider the environment that they might be surviving. Progressive men tend to be educated and work white collar jobs in air conditioned offices. Being "soft" and cooperative is a prerequisite for a life of bureaucracy and dependence on others to get things done. On the other hand conservative men generally tend to be blue collar, live out on the country side where they have to be independent to a certain degree and make themselves work hard. Being "soft" could get you in trouble.

For example soldiers tend to be conservative, which is no mistake. Being empathetic could get you killed. There's a logic behind the tendency of dehumanizing your enemies in war, calling Russians "orcs" in the Ukraine War or Houthis "Tusken Raiders". Its ugly and you might not agree but there's a reason that its not simply "male insecurity".

Consider that a conservative world view instills certain positive values that allow for survival in a tough environment, like work ethic and bravery which a cushy progressive first world kind of life doesn't need to same extent and therefor discards.

That's anyone who's ideologically attached when you question their worldview. Try going into a feminist forum and challenge their views. You'll be torn down even if you are a healthy debater, factual and objective and all that.

That's also kind of the problem with being a "debater". Its essentially verbal fighting and that tends to turn one into an angry bitter person.

I was raised in a very rural, blue collar, white working class environment in Central Florida where 80% of people are conservative. And in my teen years, I lived in trailer parks and trailer neighborhoods where the values were very centered around toughness and grit.

I know there are many great "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" values that I've learned from growing up in a place like this. And going to college with a bunch of sheltered wealthy progressives was a bit of culture shock because I was so used to the rough and rugged, worldly but unworldly redneck values.

And the college kids were in some ways more conscious and worldly than me and in some ways less conscious and worldly than me. And when I tried to bond with them through talking about conspiracy theories like I did in my hometown with so many people, they just looked at me like I was crazy because they were better educated than me. So, it was difficult to fit in because I was so used to the redneck mores and ethos.

And the Wilkins's (my dad's side of the family) are out of rural Georgia. And spending a lot of my time there during Summers. And there's a lot of great working class values that I've picked up from them. The Wilkins's genuinely are a great example of these values.

And I still value that idea of self-sufficiency, toughness, and grit. I really wouldn't be anywhere without it, and my heroes as a teenager were always men of a high work ethic which was a huge influence on my personality.

But the dehumanizing tendencies you associate with these people and these values are just very maladaptive in the current era. And anyone who was worthy of being looked up in my family and hometown, did NOT have these bigoted tendencies. 

Sure, the bigoted people would talk about good game about work ethic and standards of moral behavior and talk how black people and Mexicans were lazy animals.

But these were the people who were the most likely to behave like lazy animals with low standards of moral behavior. And they were the least likely people to live up to these values because they'd much rather whine and blame minorities for all their problems. 

For example, I was hanging out with my then-boyfriend and his coworker Tim (who was about 40 at the time). And Tim was alright. My bf and Tim worked at Golden Corral together. 

Then, Tim had invited us over to his house to hang out for a bit one evening. And he brought a plate of Golden Corral food home for his brother, who I hadn't met before.

And when I met his brother that evening, he was one of the most neurotically racist people that I've encountered in my entire life. He reminded me of the character Seth from American History X because he was a really big guy who was SUPER obsessed with hating black people.

Like, this guy ONLY ever wanted to talk about black people.

And Tim gave him the plate of Golden Corral food which was fried chicken and mashed potatoes. 

And the guy is ranting about black people and calling them monkeys, while he talking with his mouth full of food and is using his bare hands to shovel mashed potatoes into him mouth and getting them all over his face and shirt. And he's literally eating like an animal as he's comparing black people to animals.

It was the most ironic and clear instances of projection that I'd ever seen... a man who eats like a monkey calling black people monkeys.

So, don't try to school me on working class values. That's the environment I was raised in. And I know all the highlights and shadows. 

And I will tell you that the most admirable people who held those values did not spend all their time bitching and whining about things and blaming minorities for their problems. The just did the work and would give anyone the shirts off their back if they needed it.

It was only the local yokels with low intelligence and low standards of moral behavior that engaged in scapegoating the other.

[El Zapato]

On 11/7/2024 at 9:10 AM, Consept said:

Scott Galloway talks in some depth about this on this podcast -

 

Eric Weinstein made the same conjecture regarding Biden...If they are referring to a natural death...I don't buy it.

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

That's because the two of you get under their skin.

Sure, that's true.

I've noticed that just being who we are and sharing our perspectives tends to trigger insecurities in them. And this seems to cause them to go into spiteful, petty, catty competition mode with us. And it all is very reminiscent of adolescent mean girls stuff. 

And perhaps other men don't get to see that side of them.

That said, it's genuinely difficult to imagine that these guys come across as particularly Masculine, even in the eyes of men because they are so sensitive  about basic things and have tons of petty grievances that they lack the resolve and stoicism to weather the storm of.

[Bobby_2021]

Masculinity that appeals to all sides needs solid brains and compassion. 

And that is incredibly hard to come by.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

But the dehumanizing tendencies you associate with these people and these values are just very maladaptive in the current era. And anyone who was worthy of being looked up in my family and hometown, did NOT have these bigoted tendencies.

They weren't in a war, fighting for their lives. Its an extreme example admittedly.

Point is, masculinity looks different based on the environment. There is no "right way" to be masculine in a monolithic sense.

 

[Consept]

46 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Masculinity that appeals to all sides needs solid brains and compassion. 

And that is incredibly hard to come by.

I would even say you can't have true masculinity without compassion. If you haven't got compassion then it's all ego and that isn't masculine because it's not being a protector or leader 

[Emerald]

38 minutes ago, Basman said:

They weren't in a war, fighting for their lives. Its an extreme example admittedly.

Point is, masculinity looks different based on the environment. There is no "right way" to be masculine in a monolithic sense.

We weren't even really talking about the "right way" to be Masculine in the first place.

I was just saying that right wing guys don't come across as any more Masculine than the next guy. They just pedestalize Masculinity more than the next guy, and they believe that that makes them come across as more Masculine.

But with regard to the dehumanization of the other, these are Shadow-Masculine qualities and are unnecessarily petty and harmful... and maladaptive given the post-industrial environment.

And perhaps at war, there is a necessity to callous one's self to the other side in order to win. But the majority of wars that are happening now aren't actually benefitting anyone. It's just how governments are wielding their power to steal resources from other places.

But in the 21st century first-world, where war is rarely about defense of your loved ones, these are maladaptive tendencies that come from peasant-brained willful ignorance that reflect a lack of social and emotional development. And they only divide the working class populace and make us all more susceptible to being dominated and controlled by the wealthy and powerful. 

It's the working class white guy who will let himself be oppressed and sell all of his power to a dictator if it means he's allowed to be on top of the hierarchy of oppressed peasants. And this guy will make himself lower just so he can bring others even lower than him.

And I never met a person who was an out and out racist or xenophobe that possessed positive Masculine qualities. It was always the most ignorant people who were lacking the most with work ethic and standards of ethical values.

Because of this recognition that I had as a teenager that racists are just a bit ignorant... I even had come to the conclusion of, "Who cares about racist people. I don't like it. But they're just ignorant but harmless. They might run their mouth off about this, that, or the other group, but they're not actually going to do anything."

And individually, that was true. Most of the racists that I knew from my hometown were not evil... just gullible.

But I made the mistake as a teenager and early-20-something of under-estimating the power of large groups of stupid people.

Now, of course, many people who weren't out and out racists/xenophobes who conceptually valued tolerance and kindness still had their blind spots and unconscious biases. And many of them, I'm sure, will be weaponized if we become a truly Fascist state... mostly because they aren't consciously aware of what path they're going down. And they don't recognize their unconscious Fascist impulses.

And it's easy to trick people who aren't aware of the unconscious biases.

But anyone who was out-and-out bigoted was always the least developed, well adjusted, and well adapted people.

So, it's important to not put Shadow-Masculine behaviors up on a pedestal and find a positive reason for it to exist. This is what happens when Masculine values go out of alignment.

[Basman]

On 10/11/2024 at 8:40 PM, Consept said:

I would even say you can't have true masculinity without compassion. If you haven't got compassion then it's all ego and that isn't masculine because it's not being a protector or leader 

Would you say Genghis Khan was compassionate? Or Alexander the Great?

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Would you say Genghis Khan was compassionate? Or Alexander the Great?

Like everyone they probably had some compassion but i think their ego wouldve over ridden it if they priortised conquering nations over the well being of their people. I should maybe qualify that I mean healthy masculinity, no doubt the names you mentioned were masculine but it would seem not a healthy version. 

[Basman]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

Like everyone they probably had some compassion but i think their ego wouldve over ridden it if they priortised conquering nations over the well being of their people. I should maybe qualify that I mean healthy masculinity, no doubt the names you mentioned were masculine but it would seem not a healthy version. 

Healthy relative to what though? Conquest is what made their people. We wouldn't have first world countries without centuries of back and forth warring and conquest.

I feel like this discussion has veered into idealism as opposed to understanding.

[Consept]

57 minutes ago, Basman said:

Healthy relative to what though? Conquest is what made their people. We wouldn't have first world countries without centuries of back and forth warring and conquest.

I feel like this discussion has veered into idealism as opposed to understanding.

healthy as in causes suffering vs doesnt cause suffering. I get you in terms of war and conquest has led us to where we are now, but that doesnt necessarily mean that it was the best route. To be fair we don't know whether unity and compassion would've been the best route either, maybe we would've have all died from a plague because we couldn't make a decision, I don't know. 

I would say speculatively that if everyone is on the same page you would probably see more progress. You probably would agree that having individuals today that want to take over the world by conquering and going to war wouldn't be the best way to achieve progress in society. 

Do you not think masculinity should include compassion, or what's your argument?

[Basman]

14 hours ago, Consept said:

healthy as in causes suffering vs doesnt cause suffering. I get you in terms of war and conquest has led us to where we are now, but that doesnt necessarily mean that it was the best route. To be fair we don't know whether unity and compassion would've been the best route either, maybe we would've have all died from a plague because we couldn't make a decision, I don't know. 

I would say speculatively that if everyone is on the same page you would probably see more progress. You probably would agree that having individuals today that want to take over the world by conquering and going to war wouldn't be the best way to achieve progress in society. 

Do you not think masculinity should include compassion, or what's your argument?

You should account for circle of concern if you start talking about compassion, which is relative. We include historically disadvantaged people in our modern circle of concern, like homosexuals and women, but we don't include animals to the same extent (on a societal scale). In my opinion, talking about an ideal form of masculinity is inevitably influenced by your relative survival needs and has more to do with maturity rather than masculinity in essence. Are young men "unmasculine". I'd argue they are more likely just immature and lack experience that would round them out as people, like more feminine qualities for example.

Masculinity in essence is simply a bunch of traits that make solving problems more effective if I where to give it a definition (whereas femininity would be the opposite, more about connecting and being more process oriented).

[Consept]

7 minutes ago, Basman said:

You should account for circle of concern if you start talking about compassion, which is relative. We include historically disadvantaged people in our modern circle of concern, like homosexuals and women, but we don't include animals to the same extent (on a societal scale). In my opinion, talking about an ideal form of masculinity is inevitably influenced by your relative survival needs and has more to do with maturity rather than masculinity in essence. Are young men "unmasculine". I'd argue they are more likely just immature and lack experience that would round them out as people, like more feminine qualities for example.

I dont really disagree with you, maybe a better way of phrasing it from my side is something like to be a better or more rounded leader maturity and experience is needed. Through this compassion will most likely come anyway. When I say compassion in this context as a leader, I mean compassion for those that are following. So for example I would say Trump is not compassionate because he only cares about those that vote for and are loyal to him whereas the job of the president should be to serve all americans. We may disagree about that but you get my meaning in terms of circle of concern. 

I would probably argue that young men who are immature and lack experience could come across as 'unmasculine', this depends on how we define masculinity of course, but i think without the kind of emotional grounding ie being able to process emotions and understanding others emotions, they could be more liable to not be able to handle their emotions and be more feminine in the regard, just with a masculine presentation if you like. 

But i agree a lot of this is subjective and masculinity itself is a social construction and open to interpretation and also redefinition. If anything I'm trying to present a case for a healthy and more holistic version of masculinity.