Kick the bastard misogynist influencers off social media platforms and educate young men on having healthy relationships with others starting from school age.

Correct.

Systemic issues is a very vague concept. What causes young men to latch onto misogyny. Poverty? Mental health issues? Lack of meaningful employment options? Or do we circle back to blaming it on women and feminism again?

The two fundamental things that drive misogyny among men are the intensity of inequality between men themselves (more specifically, the degree to which men with property can assert themselves over men without property), and the degree to which men can be integrated into some kind of productive social relationship with other men & women.

Very few men actually start with the premise that “Women are Dishwashers.” That’s a political claim that they arrive at after consistently losing out to other more socially, or economically successful men, and subsequently internalizing their position in that dynamic as immutable natural law.

Your idea of empathy is why the Andrew Tates of this world can thrive. Worthless sentimentality and obsession with civility rather than seriously challenging toxic ideology. It’s the liberal way.

OK, but you’re not actually offering a materially viable alternative to any of the underlying systemic issues that cause either of those problems.

It is also the liberal way to challenge bad ideas, as ideas only and not actually do anything about the underlying material causes & incentives that produce those ideas.

Your single existence might be ephemeral, but humanity isn’t, your community isn’t, and possibly your family either

It is though. Life has existed on this planet for just under 4 Billion years and in that time over 99% of all species to have ever come into existence have gone extinct.

Your community & family are no less ephemeral than the life you yourself live, but you won’t get to see any of that.

If we lose trust in our community or in humanity in general

I never had a reason to trust them to begin with, tbh.

It’s so fucking embarrassing I wish I could literally just not be my gender for awhile.

You should probably delve that particular line of thought more deeply, tbh.

Female encroachment on what has traditionally been considered male spaces is not taken well. Female empowerment is considered taking from deserving males.

The problem is that in the context of a “winner-take-all” society it does do that though.

Obviously the general solution is to make a society that is overall more equitable between those who succeed & those who don’t.

But if you aren’t going to do that then you will get a reaction from those who are losing ground, even if that happening is the morally progressive outcome.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

I’m kinda confused about who is supposed to be who…

Removed by mod

The actual top answers to the questions seem to be reasonable tbh. IDK what you’re getting at here.

I almost stopped reading at the first four words, tbh.

But I also think that “shaming” as a tactic hasn’t succeeded because of the material conditions of men in society, of course.

In considering material conditions, there is what one is able to do as a consequence of the position that they hold in relation to others; and there is what one needs to do in order to secure their survival & posterity. If it is always a conflict between the personal agency of women & the ability of men to secure their livelihoods, then most men are always going to at some level resent that agency, or the choices made with it. Hence, the drive to create a Patriarchal society.

Dissolving that drive is a challenge of reconciling the ability of men to meet their material needs, with the freedom & agency of women.

Edit: I should clarify that this is meant to engage with the question of how to stop men being personally misogynistic, not how to empower women to combat it. These are two different questions, with different answers, although the latter is probably more important historically.

So the ones who are salvageable will change after some shaming… and those who aren’t won’t be saved.

What is this Christian Evangelical/Calvinist nonsense?

One podcast episode will never hook these people to listen to more: the strategy must begin elsewhere (like shaming or women denying them their objectification) so that reflection is required. But that reflection is most successful when they are confronted directly.

I’m gonna be direct with you here, no amount of personal or public shaming has ever gotten me to change any view I’ve ever had; definitely not from strangers on the internet. It usually just makes me see whoever is trying to shame me as a personal enemy, not somebody to suck up to. The only time I’ve ever actually changed my opinion on anything (with regards to fundamental values & not simple “facts about the world”) is when they either directly conflicted with me achieving my own goals, or it resulted in somebody I care about getting hurt & I felt bad about that.

I don’t think that shaming men is going to result in any kind of general shift in behavior, especially since that’s kind of been the default way of engaging with men from a Feminist position generally for as long as it’s been a thing. You have to highlight either how it actively impedes them from achieving what they want, or harms people they actually care about.

Sounds scandalous, tbh.

I was assuming that they would be fresh, and unsyruped pancakes.

I wonder if it would be comfortable or gross to sleep on a pancake bed. 🤔

Ur boss.

Jesse, wake up!

it’s pretty easy for people to become lonely losers in an anonymous, world class city and it’s pretty easy to learn the names and relation to capital of most people in a tiny rural village within a few weeks and a few conversations.

the interface matters less than the person and their will to meet and connect with others.

I think that different localities can effect different people, differently. Granted this is mostly moot at an individual level, because we have very little control over the social contexts we end up living in; but like humans are kind of born instinctually wanting social connection with others. It’s the inability to pursue or receive it, that leads to people learning to live without it; or hardening themselves against it.