this was such a banger. it was so well-expressed. it works because, manifestly, after all those years of "fire men into the sun" jokes, this essay makes it so transparent that you fundamentally respect me more than J.D. Vance respects himself.
The comparison to white women who have to function in "ugh white women ruin everything. white women hands off my Beyonce" discursive environments is especially clarifying. (honestly, some red-brown grifter should try that tactic as part of their heel turn. "I felt violently attacked when someone called me Karen. I love Trump now")
I think the reason that I faintly, slightly, and with considerable irritation, feel a little sympathy with the idea that men, or white straight men, might feel a little adrift in leftist spaces is that, if you're around people who are really into maximalist versions of standpoint theory -- that people's knowledge is determined by their identities, and that there are essential truths that we'll just *never hear* unless we hear from every representative of every category and every possible intersection of categories, while white men, men, etc., have in some essential sense already been "heard from" -- well, that implies a world in which men have no real knowledge to bring or contribution to make. all we can or should do is shut the fuck up and take orders. all the declarations about who the future of the left "looks like" and who it doesn't look like sound this way to me: you can take them as a statement about who is at the actual center of the story, but you can also take them as a statement to the effect "I wish you weren't alive at all, but since you are, I'll grudgingly tolerate your silent presence in this movement, for now." (in a situation like that, of course some of us are gonna run off at the mouth twice as much.)
there are two rhetorical ways I can see to make clear that this isn't the argument. one is to offer some account of the special things men, white men, straight men, etc. can see and know. for obvious reasons I really don't want anyone to do that. I don't think it's true. any of us may be specially gifted in some area; as a group, we're not special. (the one exception to this is that I do think our physical presence can confer a certain amount of protection on others -- it's just a little harder for a racist soldier to fire live ammo if he sees a bunch of white dudes at the front of the Black Lives Matter rally, or whatever. we should remember this. it's just practical.) the other avenue, which I think *is* open to the left, is just to occasionally reaffirm a rhetorical commitment to those dreaded universal principles, to the idea that, actually, human subjectivities are singular, other white men haven't already "spoken for me," the world will never be fully mapped, the mind and the imagination are as much a part of our experience as what we label "lived experience," a hostile stranger doesn't actually know what my "lived experience" is just from looking at me, everyone really is a unique little snowflake. leftists sometimes don't want to say things like this because it sounds too much like "western individualism" or "liberal individualism." I think it's just true, though, and I feel paranoid when I'm surrounded by people who I think genuinely have stopped believing it. I'll still go to the meeting, if I think my presence there might matter, but I'll always be watching my back, and if another guy says "It's weird being around people who value me most when I am bringing the least of myself" (as a male former prisoner who was trying to adjust to progressive norms once told me), I do get it.
I realize I sound paranoid and like somebody who overthinks shit. No kidding!!!! we're all like that, it's called being a leftist.
We need to return to liberal individualism and universal principles. That's the only way forward.
I think just as a matter of history and culture, it's hard to think of a group that has contributed more than white men - think of all the great writers, musicians, architects, scientists, and philosophers of Western Culture. The cure for hating a group is seeing the good things about that group, so hate against white people could be countered with that history.
I don't understand that prisoner's comment. What does he mean, bringing the least of himself?
What we are seeing here is hate. Thinking white people, or men, don't have anything to contribute or shouldn't contribute, is no different than thinking that of any other race. All races are equal. This is a hate group.
White men have not contributed the most; they have held onto power and written much of the record of history, so it looks like they have if one lacks critical thinking about all the unattributed women and POC they used as stepping stones and stole ideas from.
This is a lie and full of hate. White men are not thieves any more than any other group of people. There is no evidence to say that white men's vast accomplishments are due to theft.
Imagine saying that about any other group of people - "Asians never accomplished anything; they just stole from others" or "Black people never did anything original; they just stole it all."
Hopefully that makes it clear that what you are saying is just racism.
Maybe it wasn't "stolen" but it certainly has been hidden. Copernicus relied on the Tusi Couple which was developed by a Persian mathematician for our understanding of the solar system. There exists a mainstream understand of how knowledge has been obtained by people and it is often distorted to favor those with the most power ie white men. Also most popular genres of music wouldn't exist without the contribution of Black musicians across the world (Rock, Blues, Jazz, Pop, Rap, etc.). Along with that young girls are responsible for popularizing the concept of the boyband, fandom culture, and shooting many musicians into the upper stratosphere of fame. To say that white men have contributed the most to culture is a fundamentally flawed statement as it erases the very real and traceable contributions of women and people of color. I suggest you educate yourself on this "hidden" history before making definite statements.
I think I get what you mean and we have to acknowledge everyone wants to be seen at least at the individual level. Being in leftist spaces it can sometimes feel like men are silenced as a form of group punishment. But we do also need the voices of the "ordinary white man" because we need them on our side. We especially need to know what moves those who *are* willing to listen. We just need to make sure they are not the center of the conversation and they learn about their own biases. (Like the one where it is perceived as women having talked more than men when they actually have only talked 20% of the time - I don't remember the exact number).
There's a third approach, as well, which is to recognize the problems that those groups are facing, and try to solve the problems.
For instance, men are falling behind women in high school and college - what can we do about that? Calling for outreach programs to men, and for groups set up to help encourage men in different industries, would be a good start.
For white people, there are issues with all other races organizing in a way white people don't. Many companies have groups for all other races but exclude white people. That is illegal and that needs to be addressed as well.
Talking about these things would make it clear that white people, as a group, and men, as a group, are valued just as much as any other group.
The thing I find striking is that "Rabinowitz concludes that we can’t ask men to “‘suck it up’ and accept lives that feel meaningless to them.”" But here's the thing: Under the traditional masculinity/patriarchy model, the one that these men apparently need so they can feel manly, women are absolutely supposed to suck it up and accept lives that feel meaningless to them.
We need men telling men to act like real adults, not men telling men they can only be men if women can't even be fully human. I mean, in the entirety of human history, giving men everything they want hasn't actually made them happy either.
yeah I think one of the issues here is that it's not like there's a shortage of non-toxic male role models on the left; women and leftist men are always going on about different men you can be like -- Mr. Rogers, Captain America, the guy with the big hair that paints, &c. The problem is that for a large cohort of men, they don't WANT that. They WANT a society organized around them being heroic champions of evil or, maybe more immediately, they want a bikini model sex mommy that they are the boss of.
If someone fantasizes about being rich, you can't win them over by offering them a job working on a farm where they'll be paid in potatoes -- no matter how good or satisfying that life is, the reason I fantasize about being rich is because I don't WANT to grow potatoes.
And so there is no way for Leftists to accommodate this, because the only way to attract that cohort is to give them what they want, and what they want is... counter-revolutionary, I guess. The only thing that is going to make this change is eventually all of society making it clear that no matter how much you want your fantasy, *you can't have it*.
Maybe we'll reach some kind of critical mass or something and it will turn over. Or maybe there'll be a shooting war between the genders, I don't know, but there just isn't a way for free people to accommodate men who dream of being masters.
So many striking thoughts and arguments here! They don't want to be men. They want everyone to dance around protecting their egos. It's like...the average hetero marriage writ large 😱
fully agreed, and in particular the point about vance (and others like him) being the actual attackers of masculinity is such a good point, and verbalized something that i’ve tried to put into words for a while.
i care very little about the performance of masculinity in 99% of scenarios, but when i see a manosphere guy talking about how macho he is while being disgustingly sycophantic towards right-wing authority figures or reflexively writing aggrieved five paragraph essays in response to women just, like, existing, *that* is what triggers the masculine disgust in my brain more than anything else.
like, that guy in the screenshotted tweet is not only being a psycho, he’s acting like a total pussy even *within the boundaries* of the patriarchal framework he purports to love so much. it’s such an embarrassing display of weakness and cowardice, and the idea that that guy (and the movement he represents) is acting *on behalf* of some ideal of masculine strength is just, like, obviously insane
So well put it’s inspired me to write a similar article on the issue. Right wing men have long decried the “loss of masculinity” in society when they themselves are the epitome of that decay. They aren’t MEN, they’re weak, easily offended, whiny little guys who bitch and moan at everything that doesn’t affirm their beliefs. They have no moral backbone, they have no dignity, they have no strength. Their community is built on other angry little men drawn to weak leaders that make them feel validated, instead of a community built on introspection and support. These next few years are going to be the death knell of their kind, and it must be put to rest.
There tends to be a desperate and very public grab for power when they realize their influence is slipping. It’ll likely take years, but the pendulum always swings back after a major shift like this, and hard
I couldn't agree more. I was listening to a podcast (The Daily, I think) on this topic pre-election, and my thoughts were the same: nut the fuck up. Why are women responsible for everyone's comfort? Women have had to "figure it out" from the day we came into being on the planet. Our roles have evolved and shifted, and yet you don't hear large swaths of women complaining about having no identity. Why? Because most women get that it looks different -- and can harmoniously be different -- for every woman. That's what the man-babies (the ones complaining about this) don't seem to get. If you want to be a "bro" kinda guy, then do it! If you want to be a fucking ranch hand, oil baron, whatever the hell kind of masculinity feels good to you, then be it! If you want to be a stay-at-home dad, a hair stylist, or anything else traditionally feminine, do it! It doesn't make you any less of a man. And there are women (if that's who you're attracted to) who want to be the female you're looking for -- traditional role, breadwinner, scholar ... *We don't have to all be the same.* Diversity is what makes this country so fucking beautiful -- when it's not being suppressed. No one is more or less of a man or a woman for choosing one form or another. So yeah, put your big boy pants on and make a choice that's right *for you*. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, it's all good.
I think this is backwards. In today's society, men are considered hyperagentic - responsible for everything. Like super adults.
Whereas women are considered hypoagentic - society blames a woman's upbringing or social problems to make excuses for her behavior, whereas men don't get the same pass.
I think I moved my boyfriend to the left from a Trump family that influenced him, not passionately but enough. We joined circled together and him on his very much own doing. He’s very straight and masculine, spends time in the straightest of masculine sports scenes yet joined a very queer sports team that lead him to a bell hooks deconstructing masculinity book club with other men and it’s been so healthy and healing. These men are cowards. If my boyfriend can do this and not be offended then these men are just whiney babies.
Interesting piece. I agree it’s not the job of women to create meaning in men’s lives. But I also don’t think the progressive left offers them much in the way of meaning that men are likely to gravitate towards, and as such it shouldn’t be that surprising that they seek it in Trump and the manosphere.
I don't know why martial arts or weight lifting shouldn't be something for progressives. A lot of leftism is also about mutual aid - and we need strong people, we also need people who can defend us against fascists, etc.
If you're a good fighter you could offer to teach self defense classes for trans women. I know martial arts people who set up stuff like this.
The problem is the brain worms that only weak men are in solidarity with women have already taken hold in so many people that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
this was such a banger. it was so well-expressed. it works because, manifestly, after all those years of "fire men into the sun" jokes, this essay makes it so transparent that you fundamentally respect me more than J.D. Vance respects himself.
The comparison to white women who have to function in "ugh white women ruin everything. white women hands off my Beyonce" discursive environments is especially clarifying. (honestly, some red-brown grifter should try that tactic as part of their heel turn. "I felt violently attacked when someone called me Karen. I love Trump now")
I think the reason that I faintly, slightly, and with considerable irritation, feel a little sympathy with the idea that men, or white straight men, might feel a little adrift in leftist spaces is that, if you're around people who are really into maximalist versions of standpoint theory -- that people's knowledge is determined by their identities, and that there are essential truths that we'll just *never hear* unless we hear from every representative of every category and every possible intersection of categories, while white men, men, etc., have in some essential sense already been "heard from" -- well, that implies a world in which men have no real knowledge to bring or contribution to make. all we can or should do is shut the fuck up and take orders. all the declarations about who the future of the left "looks like" and who it doesn't look like sound this way to me: you can take them as a statement about who is at the actual center of the story, but you can also take them as a statement to the effect "I wish you weren't alive at all, but since you are, I'll grudgingly tolerate your silent presence in this movement, for now." (in a situation like that, of course some of us are gonna run off at the mouth twice as much.)
there are two rhetorical ways I can see to make clear that this isn't the argument. one is to offer some account of the special things men, white men, straight men, etc. can see and know. for obvious reasons I really don't want anyone to do that. I don't think it's true. any of us may be specially gifted in some area; as a group, we're not special. (the one exception to this is that I do think our physical presence can confer a certain amount of protection on others -- it's just a little harder for a racist soldier to fire live ammo if he sees a bunch of white dudes at the front of the Black Lives Matter rally, or whatever. we should remember this. it's just practical.) the other avenue, which I think *is* open to the left, is just to occasionally reaffirm a rhetorical commitment to those dreaded universal principles, to the idea that, actually, human subjectivities are singular, other white men haven't already "spoken for me," the world will never be fully mapped, the mind and the imagination are as much a part of our experience as what we label "lived experience," a hostile stranger doesn't actually know what my "lived experience" is just from looking at me, everyone really is a unique little snowflake. leftists sometimes don't want to say things like this because it sounds too much like "western individualism" or "liberal individualism." I think it's just true, though, and I feel paranoid when I'm surrounded by people who I think genuinely have stopped believing it. I'll still go to the meeting, if I think my presence there might matter, but I'll always be watching my back, and if another guy says "It's weird being around people who value me most when I am bringing the least of myself" (as a male former prisoner who was trying to adjust to progressive norms once told me), I do get it.
I realize I sound paranoid and like somebody who overthinks shit. No kidding!!!! we're all like that, it's called being a leftist.
And this is why I'm not a leftist.
We need to return to liberal individualism and universal principles. That's the only way forward.
I think just as a matter of history and culture, it's hard to think of a group that has contributed more than white men - think of all the great writers, musicians, architects, scientists, and philosophers of Western Culture. The cure for hating a group is seeing the good things about that group, so hate against white people could be countered with that history.
I don't understand that prisoner's comment. What does he mean, bringing the least of himself?
What we are seeing here is hate. Thinking white people, or men, don't have anything to contribute or shouldn't contribute, is no different than thinking that of any other race. All races are equal. This is a hate group.
White men have not contributed the most; they have held onto power and written much of the record of history, so it looks like they have if one lacks critical thinking about all the unattributed women and POC they used as stepping stones and stole ideas from.
This is a lie and full of hate. White men are not thieves any more than any other group of people. There is no evidence to say that white men's vast accomplishments are due to theft.
Imagine saying that about any other group of people - "Asians never accomplished anything; they just stole from others" or "Black people never did anything original; they just stole it all."
Hopefully that makes it clear that what you are saying is just racism.
Maybe it wasn't "stolen" but it certainly has been hidden. Copernicus relied on the Tusi Couple which was developed by a Persian mathematician for our understanding of the solar system. There exists a mainstream understand of how knowledge has been obtained by people and it is often distorted to favor those with the most power ie white men. Also most popular genres of music wouldn't exist without the contribution of Black musicians across the world (Rock, Blues, Jazz, Pop, Rap, etc.). Along with that young girls are responsible for popularizing the concept of the boyband, fandom culture, and shooting many musicians into the upper stratosphere of fame. To say that white men have contributed the most to culture is a fundamentally flawed statement as it erases the very real and traceable contributions of women and people of color. I suggest you educate yourself on this "hidden" history before making definite statements.
There is no question that other groups have contributed, and their contributions have sometimes been overlooked.
Even so, I don't think we should minimize the contributions of white men, any more than we should minimize the contributions of other groups.
By the way, the US Census Bureau defines white to include the Middle East, so Persian mathematicians would count as white.
I think I get what you mean and we have to acknowledge everyone wants to be seen at least at the individual level. Being in leftist spaces it can sometimes feel like men are silenced as a form of group punishment. But we do also need the voices of the "ordinary white man" because we need them on our side. We especially need to know what moves those who *are* willing to listen. We just need to make sure they are not the center of the conversation and they learn about their own biases. (Like the one where it is perceived as women having talked more than men when they actually have only talked 20% of the time - I don't remember the exact number).
There's a third approach, as well, which is to recognize the problems that those groups are facing, and try to solve the problems.
For instance, men are falling behind women in high school and college - what can we do about that? Calling for outreach programs to men, and for groups set up to help encourage men in different industries, would be a good start.
For white people, there are issues with all other races organizing in a way white people don't. Many companies have groups for all other races but exclude white people. That is illegal and that needs to be addressed as well.
Talking about these things would make it clear that white people, as a group, and men, as a group, are valued just as much as any other group.
The thing I find striking is that "Rabinowitz concludes that we can’t ask men to “‘suck it up’ and accept lives that feel meaningless to them.”" But here's the thing: Under the traditional masculinity/patriarchy model, the one that these men apparently need so they can feel manly, women are absolutely supposed to suck it up and accept lives that feel meaningless to them.
We need men telling men to act like real adults, not men telling men they can only be men if women can't even be fully human. I mean, in the entirety of human history, giving men everything they want hasn't actually made them happy either.
Huh? How are women supposed to suck it up?
yeah I think one of the issues here is that it's not like there's a shortage of non-toxic male role models on the left; women and leftist men are always going on about different men you can be like -- Mr. Rogers, Captain America, the guy with the big hair that paints, &c. The problem is that for a large cohort of men, they don't WANT that. They WANT a society organized around them being heroic champions of evil or, maybe more immediately, they want a bikini model sex mommy that they are the boss of.
If someone fantasizes about being rich, you can't win them over by offering them a job working on a farm where they'll be paid in potatoes -- no matter how good or satisfying that life is, the reason I fantasize about being rich is because I don't WANT to grow potatoes.
And so there is no way for Leftists to accommodate this, because the only way to attract that cohort is to give them what they want, and what they want is... counter-revolutionary, I guess. The only thing that is going to make this change is eventually all of society making it clear that no matter how much you want your fantasy, *you can't have it*.
Maybe we'll reach some kind of critical mass or something and it will turn over. Or maybe there'll be a shooting war between the genders, I don't know, but there just isn't a way for free people to accommodate men who dream of being masters.
You’re trolling people here. I’m not going to feed you. If you actually care you’ll do the work.
Huh? The whole problem is that there are no good non-toxic male role models, and we badly need them.
You haven't looked hard enough. Or at all, because the world has many many many examples.
Who?
My job isn’t to google for you. You’re presumably an adult.
Since it is a matter of opinion, google isn't particularly useful here - I'm asking who YOU think is supposedly a good role model.
So many striking thoughts and arguments here! They don't want to be men. They want everyone to dance around protecting their egos. It's like...the average hetero marriage writ large 😱
I'm so glad the algorithm sent you to me today!
fully agreed, and in particular the point about vance (and others like him) being the actual attackers of masculinity is such a good point, and verbalized something that i’ve tried to put into words for a while.
i care very little about the performance of masculinity in 99% of scenarios, but when i see a manosphere guy talking about how macho he is while being disgustingly sycophantic towards right-wing authority figures or reflexively writing aggrieved five paragraph essays in response to women just, like, existing, *that* is what triggers the masculine disgust in my brain more than anything else.
like, that guy in the screenshotted tweet is not only being a psycho, he’s acting like a total pussy even *within the boundaries* of the patriarchal framework he purports to love so much. it’s such an embarrassing display of weakness and cowardice, and the idea that that guy (and the movement he represents) is acting *on behalf* of some ideal of masculine strength is just, like, obviously insane
"they would prefer to do absolutely anything other than be embarrassed" you're an oracle of our generation because this was spot on.
So well put it’s inspired me to write a similar article on the issue. Right wing men have long decried the “loss of masculinity” in society when they themselves are the epitome of that decay. They aren’t MEN, they’re weak, easily offended, whiny little guys who bitch and moan at everything that doesn’t affirm their beliefs. They have no moral backbone, they have no dignity, they have no strength. Their community is built on other angry little men drawn to weak leaders that make them feel validated, instead of a community built on introspection and support. These next few years are going to be the death knell of their kind, and it must be put to rest.
What makes you think the next few years will be their death knell?
There tends to be a desperate and very public grab for power when they realize their influence is slipping. It’ll likely take years, but the pendulum always swings back after a major shift like this, and hard
Bang on. Excellent narrative and perfect points.
Loved reading this. I really appreciate this viewpoint.
No, we can't do that!
(Sorry, bookmarked to read later.)
I couldn't agree more. I was listening to a podcast (The Daily, I think) on this topic pre-election, and my thoughts were the same: nut the fuck up. Why are women responsible for everyone's comfort? Women have had to "figure it out" from the day we came into being on the planet. Our roles have evolved and shifted, and yet you don't hear large swaths of women complaining about having no identity. Why? Because most women get that it looks different -- and can harmoniously be different -- for every woman. That's what the man-babies (the ones complaining about this) don't seem to get. If you want to be a "bro" kinda guy, then do it! If you want to be a fucking ranch hand, oil baron, whatever the hell kind of masculinity feels good to you, then be it! If you want to be a stay-at-home dad, a hair stylist, or anything else traditionally feminine, do it! It doesn't make you any less of a man. And there are women (if that's who you're attracted to) who want to be the female you're looking for -- traditional role, breadwinner, scholar ... *We don't have to all be the same.* Diversity is what makes this country so fucking beautiful -- when it's not being suppressed. No one is more or less of a man or a woman for choosing one form or another. So yeah, put your big boy pants on and make a choice that's right *for you*. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, it's all good.
I think this is backwards. In today's society, men are considered hyperagentic - responsible for everything. Like super adults.
Whereas women are considered hypoagentic - society blames a woman's upbringing or social problems to make excuses for her behavior, whereas men don't get the same pass.
I think I moved my boyfriend to the left from a Trump family that influenced him, not passionately but enough. We joined circled together and him on his very much own doing. He’s very straight and masculine, spends time in the straightest of masculine sports scenes yet joined a very queer sports team that lead him to a bell hooks deconstructing masculinity book club with other men and it’s been so healthy and healing. These men are cowards. If my boyfriend can do this and not be offended then these men are just whiney babies.
Interesting piece. I agree it’s not the job of women to create meaning in men’s lives. But I also don’t think the progressive left offers them much in the way of meaning that men are likely to gravitate towards, and as such it shouldn’t be that surprising that they seek it in Trump and the manosphere.
I don't know why martial arts or weight lifting shouldn't be something for progressives. A lot of leftism is also about mutual aid - and we need strong people, we also need people who can defend us against fascists, etc.
If you're a good fighter you could offer to teach self defense classes for trans women. I know martial arts people who set up stuff like this.
The problem is the brain worms that only weak men are in solidarity with women have already taken hold in so many people that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
What if men ACTED like adults?
I am really tired of hearing how hard it is being a man. It's not hard being a man. It's hard being an asshole.