The politics of masculinity – politicalbetting.com

System

The politics of masculinity  – politicalbetting.com

I read a truly awful book the other day. JJ Bola’s (apologies if you’re a reader of PB) Mask Off: Masculinity Redefined can be perfectly summed up by a translation of its German title: Don’t be a man: Why masculinity is a nightmare for boys. The idea that the solution to toxic masculinity is to implore boys not to be men is, to put it mildly, self-defeating.

Read the full story here

partypoliticalorphan

First and thanks Max H. An interesting header to the thread.

malcolmg

2nd like Trump

partypoliticalorphan

The decline of traditional and heavy industries in the West is a factor here. Men still conceptualise themselves as the protector and breadwinner. There are no longer enough well-paying, traditional jobs for the less academically gifted male.

WildernessPt2

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

rkrkrk

Good header, enjoyed reading. I think one part of 'masculinity' that I feel the toxic influencers online miss and should be emphasised is self reliance. Does anyone think Donald Trump or Andrew Tate know how to change a tyre or cook a meal or build a tree house?

I feel like too many of these people have a mindset/message get rich quick (in dubious ways) and then be lazy, sitting around in sports cars and being misogynistic.

Let's have a masculinity that emphasises being able to do things! In some ways I worry that the modern world has us all to specialised... experts in a narrow range of tasks and then hire someone for anything else.

RochdalePioneers

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Foxy

partypoliticalorphan said:

The decline of traditional and heavy industries in the West is a factor here. Men still conceptualise themselves as the protector and breadwinner. There are no longer enough well-paying, traditional jobs for the less academically gifted male.

To a degree that's true, but those jobs are not going to return, even if manufacturing did re-shore as increasingly it is automated and highly technical. Manufacturing requires skilled engineers not brute strength.

nico679

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

maxh

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

Taz

From the More In Common poll that has labour neck and neck with the Tories, the report card is damning. Even from labour voters.

This budget is going to be critical.

https://x.com/luketryl/status/1845359998009819343?s=61

ToryJim

It’s a fascinating area caught up with political reactions to the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolution. The history of the last 500 years or so has seen a shift from men and women largely being in a complementary relationship to one where they are encouraged to compete with each other. This is having effects for good and ill on both sides, and is arguably only working to the advantage of a small minority of either group. When you couple this with the hyper individualism that has become the dominant approach to society it appears to be a toxic brew that exacerbates and reconfigures underlying economic disparities.

We need to find a way to get back to a more complementary approach and a more community based society because setting everyone up as in a fee for all race is something only a few can win and most will lose even if they don’t recognise that they are losing.

rottenborough

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

An issue is educational attainment.

White working class boys do the worst in school of any demographic.

WildernessPt2

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

Stuartinromford

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

And that's the rub. There are lots of ways of Being A Man that don't involve being toxic. But they don't appeal to everyone. The one that springs to mind is when Gareth Southgate's England Team went woke in 2020 or so, and it sent a certain kind of (usually older) man utterly potty.

AnthonyT

Thanks @maxh

"but if a woman calls out something you do or say as sexist or misogynist, don’t get defensive, take them seriously, thank them and reflect genuinely on whether you need to adapt your behaviour."

There's a few posters on here - an all male forum (why is that?) - who could do with listening to this advice.

WildernessPt2

ToryJim said:

It’s a fascinating area caught up with political reactions to the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolution. The history of the last 500 years or so has seen a shift from men and women largely being in a complementary relationship to one where they are encouraged to compete with each other. This is having effects for good and ill on both sides, and is arguably only working to the advantage of a small minority of either group. When you couple this with the hyper individualism that has become the dominant approach to society it appears to be a toxic brew that exacerbates and reconfigures underlying economic disparities.

We need to find a way to get back to a more complementary approach and a more community based society because setting everyone up as in a fee for all race is something only a few can win and most will lose even if they don’t recognise that they are losing.

“Complimentary relationship” living in a pre industrial society was a nasty, short and brutish existence. Famine was both a regular and routine part of existence, with high infant mortality and maternal death. It’s not something to aspire back to with rose tinted glasses.

HYUFD

There is certainly a problem with some young men in low status jobs if employed at all and unable to find a female partner turning to the likes of Tate and the populist right. Trump, Reform UK, the AfD, Vox, Wilders, the Sweden Democrats, Le Pen etc all do better with men than women and significantly better with young men than young women.

While the header article has some good ideas, the best way to limit so called toxic masculinity is to find them good jobs and stable relationships

Foxy

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

Thanks for an interesting header.

Have you seen this article?

https://www.ft.com/content/17606f25-1d03-4f37-b7f4-f39989af9bde



It's a world wide phenomenon that young women are now better educated than men, and the earnings gap has closed or inverted as a result. This does tend to revert to the usual gender gap once over 30 for a variety of reasons, or at least still does.

The average man is no longer likely to be the breadwinner to a family in the way that might have been the case a few decades past. If men want "Trad Wives" they need to be in a position be Trad Husbands, and few are. Either they need to adapt to changing social structures or are going to remain single.

Stereodog

I'm not sure about this argument

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

I'm not sure about this argument to be honest. I think the points you make in your post are well meant but you're defining masculinity in a particular way which is as alien to as many men as it embraces. I wasn't anywhere close to a traditional model of masculinity at school and feel lucky to have grown up in an era where that was tolerated. I think we'd be better off trying to ensure that this tolerance runs the gamut of personalities rather than implicitly trying to re-establish a slightly updated version of what a 'normal' man should be like.

kamski

rottenborough said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

An issue is educational attainment.

White working class boys do the worst in school of any demographic.

Not true

WildernessPt2

rottenborough said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

An issue is educational attainment.

White working class boys do the worst in school of any demographic.

This is often said and is slightly misleading because of the means used to determine the information. Because of the much higher chance of free school meals for non white families as routine means that whilst using FSM as the criteria for assessing this for white boys ends up being a small subset of white people it results in being a much wider group of none white families. So one is a subset and one less so.

RochdalePioneers

rottenborough said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

An issue is educational attainment.

White working class boys do the worst in school of any demographic.

And so much of that is down to class and money. Back in the day the machine needed swathes of men to work in factories and industry. Education not needed, just graft. So why bother investing into education? Culturally that becomes the settled norm so that poor attainment is seen as the good thing and wanting to be educated as wrong. Peer pressure - from fellow students and adults - squashing the performance of the kids who could be more.

I know that grammar school advocates say that selection offers a route out - but only for the selected few. We need to invest in early years education, nursery, primary. Make the coming generation better educated generally. Only then do we break the cycle.

Our problem is that as a nation we have become hopelessly lost. Instead of seeing things like education as an investment, it is portrayed as a cost. A burden. Who will pay?

Taz

rottenborough said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

An issue is educational attainment.

White working class boys do the worst in school of any demographic.

Indeed and it is something no one seriously seems concerned at addressing either.

HYUFD

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

bondegezou

ToryJim said:

It’s a fascinating area caught up with political reactions to the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolution. The history of the last 500 years or so has seen a shift from men and women largely being in a complementary relationship to one where they are encouraged to compete with each other. This is having effects for good and ill on both sides, and is arguably only working to the advantage of a small minority of either group. When you couple this with the hyper individualism that has become the dominant approach to society it appears to be a toxic brew that exacerbates and reconfigures underlying economic disparities.

We need to find a way to get back to a more complementary approach and a more community based society because setting everyone up as in a fee for all race is something only a few can win and most will lose even if they don’t recognise that they are losing.

“get back to a more complementary approach” means pushing traditional gender roles, i.e. telling women to get back in the kitchen. This is stupid. It won’t be popular with women. I, as a man, am very happen with more overlapping gender roles.

If there’s a problem with too much competition in the labour market, that’s because of companies increasingly treating their employees as interchangeable and disposable units. Better protection for labour is the answer there.

Stuartinromford

FPT:

RochdalePioneers said:

WildernessPt2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ed Miliband to roll out pylons despite official report showing burying cables can be cheaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/12/ed-milliband-pylons-report-underground-cables-cheaper/ (£££)

The issue seems to be that burying cables may be cheaper but is also slower.

"Ed Miliband’s reckless 2030 decarbonisation target", I love this government so much, it's just beautiful to watch it in action.

I’m saying it again and again, but miliband will be the ruin of this government if he doesn’t end up changing his plans. Energy will be ruinously expansive for consumers and industry without huge public subsidy, and that assumes that he dkesnt take seriously to end natural gas usage by 2030. Add on top of price it will be unstable and liable to routine brownout.

Of course a pragmatist will be “well we didn’t get there but a bit more renewables wont do any harm”, but he wants the energy revolution. He’s not interested in pragmatism.

Brownouts? We’ve gone past peak risk for that already, surely? We have had a chronic lack of generating capacity thanks to post financial crash decisions. Now that so much more renewable capacity is coming on stream, with battery storage to back it up, we’ll be ok.

I think I have got to a point now where if the Telegraph are running a story on something I largely ignore it. Their “journalism” increasingly consists of unhinged barely factual smears desperately trying to find any issue they can to persuade the Tory members that they are absolutely right to be ramping hard right candidates as their way back to government.

I think this is the report being discussed:

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/304496/download

Key curious thing.

The conventional (AC pylons) solution is cheaper if we do it to a 2030 deadline, rather than holding it back to 2034. Which is what makes the underground setup look competitive, and is pretty much the opposite of the Telegraph spin.

(There are other limits on the DC underground setup- harder to upgrade, supply challenges and the AC/DC converters being not nice things to be by.)

I'm going with "cherry-picking statistics like a drunk bloke using a lamppost".

maxh

HYUFD said:

There is certainly a problem with some young men in low status jobs if employed at all and unable to find a female partner turning to the likes of Tate and the populist right. Trump, Reform UK, the AfD, Vox, Wilders, the Sweden Democrats, Le Pen etc all do better with men than women and significantly better with young men than young women.

While the header article has some good ideas, the best way to limit so called toxic masculinity is to find them good jobs and stable relationships

I agree, and as always find the comments here enlightening. Combine your point here with @Foxy's immediately afterwards (thanks Foxy - I hadn't seen that article but agree it's instructive) and I think the relative educational attainment of men and women is an important factor.

My eldest child has just started primary school. He was at a forest school previously, and seemed utterly in his element climbing trees and covering himself in mud (as did everyone there of whatever gender). Since starting school he has found the sedentary days quite difficult and (anecdotally) this has been a harder transition than it is for most girls in his class.

I wonder if there is something structural in primary education that turns off most boys more than it turns off most girls and initiates this attainment gap? No doubt the gender of most primary teachers is a bit of a factor, but perhaps also the design of the school day.

nico679

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

It was an old clip which I thought was new! My point still stands , the US media continue to sanewash Trump .

WildernessPt2

nico679 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

It was an old clip which I thought was new! My point still stands , the US media continue to sanewash Trump .

You think Trump gets good media from the US mainstream?

Stereodog

bondegezou said:

ToryJim said:

It’s a fascinating area caught up with political reactions to the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolution. The history of the last 500 years or so has seen a shift from men and women largely being in a complementary relationship to one where they are encouraged to compete with each other. This is having effects for good and ill on both sides, and is arguably only working to the advantage of a small minority of either group. When you couple this with the hyper individualism that has become the dominant approach to society it appears to be a toxic brew that exacerbates and reconfigures underlying economic disparities.

We need to find a way to get back to a more complementary approach and a more community based society because setting everyone up as in a fee for all race is something only a few can win and most will lose even if they don’t recognise that they are losing.

“get back to a more complementary approach” means pushing traditional gender roles, i.e. telling women to get back in the kitchen. This is stupid. It won’t be popular with women. I, as a man, am very happen with more overlapping gender roles.

If there’s a problem with too much competition in the labour market, that’s because of companies increasingly treating their employees as interchangeable and disposable units. Better protection for labour is the answer there.

I agree with this. In the past if you didn't do well at school and weren't entrepreneurial you could still find a decent stable job that earned you enough to live on. We live in a post industrial society now so many of those jobs aren't coming back. The problem is that the successor jobs such as retail, warehouse work etc are often highly unstable with zero hours contracts.

rcs1000

Your first bullet point applies equally to racism.

maxh

Stereodog said:

I'm not sure about this argument

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

I'm not sure about this argument to be honest. I think the points you make in your post are well meant but you're defining masculinity in a particular way which is as alien to as many men as it embraces. I wasn't anywhere close to a traditional model of masculinity at school and feel lucky to have grown up in an era where that was tolerated. I think we'd be better off trying to ensure that this tolerance runs the gamut of personalities rather than implicitly trying to re-establish a slightly updated version of what a 'normal' man should be like.

Very fair challenge, thanks.

I'm not intending to create an exclusive definition but an inclusive one - to answer your point directly I think we should be tolerant of the full gamut of personalities other than those who seek their own validation by harming others.

RochdalePioneers

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

rcs1000

Foxy said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

The decline of traditional and heavy industries in the West is a factor here. Men still conceptualise themselves as the protector and breadwinner. There are no longer enough well-paying, traditional jobs for the less academically gifted male.

To a degree that's true, but those jobs are not going to return, even if manufacturing did re-shore as increasingly it is automated and highly technical. Manufacturing requires skilled engineers not brute strength.

Well, yes.

In one of my videos (back in the days I did videos!), I did an analysis of Ford's River Rouge plant, and how it produced as many cars as it ever did; only it required one tenth the workforce, and most of the people employed now had engineering degrees.

The skilled working class job has been destroyed by technology, and that genie is not going back in the box. But we do need to find a way to deal with the consequences.

No_Offence_Alan

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

If only men committed as little crime as women.

rcs1000

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

It was an old clip which I thought was new! My point still stands , the US media continue to sanewash Trump .

You think Trump gets good media from the US mainstream?

Yes.

I think Trump is treated extremely generously by US media.

I mean, how do you think the media should treat someone who organized fake slates of electors to overthrow a democratic election. That's a criminal, right?

And not just a tax dodger or someone guilty of sexual assault. Someone who attempted to subvert the very fabric of democracy.

Yet they treat him as if he was a normal candidate.

maxh

rcs1000 said:

Your first bullet point applies equally to racism.

Agreed. Collapsing individual circumstances into group circumstances will always cause resentment. Sometimes it is needed to be able to do policy at scale, but too often we forget the problems with it.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Stereodog, another fun factor (although not one that particularly affects one sex more than the other) is AI eating jobs in various sectors.

*sighs*

nico679

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

It was an old clip which I thought was new! My point still stands , the US media continue to sanewash Trump .

You think Trump gets good media from the US mainstream?

What he gets is now sanewashing . He’s desensitized the public . In any normal situation his actions would disqualify a candidate . In the UK mocking a disabled person would see you disqualified. We have our problems here but still have certain standards that politicians have to adhere to .

rcs1000

maxh said:

rcs1000 said:

Your first bullet point applies equally to racism.

Agreed. Collapsing individual circumstances into group circumstances will always cause resentment. Sometimes it is needed to be able to do policy at scale, but too often we forget the problems with it.

And justifiable resentment: are the Obama's children in any way disadvantaged?

TimS

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

It was an old clip which I thought was new! My point still stands , the US media continue to sanewash Trump .

You think Trump gets good media from the US mainstream?

Yes.

I think Trump is treated extremely generously by US media.

I mean, how do you think the media should treat someone who organized fake slates of electors to overthrow a democratic election. That's a criminal, right?

And not just a tax dodger or someone guilty of sexual assault. Someone who attempted to subvert the very fabric of democracy.

Yet they treat him as if he was a normal candidate.

They treat Trump like a celebrity. An entertainer. Normal rules don't apply.

When in reality, he is a political grotesque.

Benpointer

Very interesting header @maxh - thank you.

One thing that puzzles me is that your positive model for masculinity is not, in my opinion, any different from the default 'approved' model that applies across today's society. It is definitely a long way away from the model of masculinity that was prevalent when I was growing up as boy back in the 1960s - none of your three sub-bullets would have been widely accepted then.

So yes, your model is great, but not radical. I think it's the rebellion against the kind of model you are propounding that drives the popularity of Trump, Tate, etc. amongst disaffected males. I've not read Bola's book but that sounds like the outlier to me - which is probably why he can get it published.

Notwithstanding the above, your header was really thought-provoking. Thanks.

SandyRentool

I still see women having to deal with a load of shite in a male dominated workplace.

You don't realise how deep seated it is unless you have female colleagues who trust you enough to open up and describe their experiences.

Cookie

Interesting article, with which I agree with more than I disagree. Particularly the firsf and final bullets. I think an important distinction to make is that it's not that young men are voting right out of enthusiasm for some sort of Andrew Tate vision of masculinity, but voting AGAINST a left which continues to demonise them and prioritise women over them.

It's very hard to vote for a candidate who appears to dislike you. And many on the left and in the centre appear by their language to dislike men.

MarqueeMark

The greatest sadness surrounding a Trump win would be because his opponent was a woman. Every other political norm subverted by misogyny.

Stuartinromford

nico679 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

WildernessPt2 said:

nico679 said:

Trump threatening to not provide federal disaster aid to California and the moronic crowd cheer him at his rally in California!

After two recent hurricanes you’d think this might not look good but the media just continue to normalize his disgusting behaviour.

And his comments earlier in the week about choosing the black or white President resulted in tumbleweed .

I missed that, what did he actually say about black and white?

It was an old clip which I thought was new! My point still stands , the US media continue to sanewash Trump .

You think Trump gets good media from the US mainstream?

What he gets is now sanewashing . He’s desensitized the public . In any normal situation his actions would disqualify a candidate . In the UK mocking a disabled person would see you disqualified. We have our problems here but still have certain standards that politicians have to adhere to .

I suspect that anyone but Trump doing what he does would disqualify them- look at the way that the Diddy Dons crash and burn when they try to do MAGA.

But somehow he gets away with it all. That's what Great Men do, which is why one should be wary of Great Men, in case they aren't Good Men.

nico679

The alleged fight to save masculinity is an unsaid part of Trumps campaign , aided and abetted by the Stepford Wives who want their husband to go a-hunting and then come home and bang them mercilessly.

Stereodog

maxh said:

Stereodog said:

I'm not sure about this argument

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

I'm not sure about this argument to be honest. I think the points you make in your post are well meant but you're defining masculinity in a particular way which is as alien to as many men as it embraces. I wasn't anywhere close to a traditional model of masculinity at school and feel lucky to have grown up in an era where that was tolerated. I think we'd be better off trying to ensure that this tolerance runs the gamut of personalities rather than implicitly trying to re-establish a slightly updated version of what a 'normal' man should be like.

Very fair challenge, thanks.

I'm not intending to create an exclusive definition but an inclusive one - to answer your point directly I think we should be tolerant of the full gamut of personalities other than those who seek their own validation by harming others.

Thanks for the response and I know that you're not trying to create an exclusive definition of masculinity and your piece has generated some brilliant discussion. I just think that framing the discussion in terms of masculinity does that by default because it's a binary concept. If you're not masculine then what are you? I think the problem is real but as others have said the cause has more to do with educational and employment opportunities than it does identity. Unscrupulous internet celebrities and politicians make it about identity because it's easier to exploit

geoffw

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

theProle

Foxy said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

The decline of traditional and heavy industries in the West is a factor here. Men still conceptualise themselves as the protector and breadwinner. There are no longer enough well-paying, traditional jobs for the less academically gifted male.

To a degree that's true, but those jobs are not going to return, even if manufacturing did re-shore as increasingly it is automated and highly technical. Manufacturing requires skilled engineers not brute strength.

It depends on *what* you are manufacturing. Final, light engineering processes (e.g. car manufacturing) are mostly (although not exclusively) this. Heavy engineering (e.g. steel production) still takes a load of fairly tough grunts to actually make it happen.

We've de-industrialised most at the heavy industry level, which is worst possible outcome for these traditional male jobs.

Benpointer

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

ToryJim

bondegezou said:

ToryJim said:

It’s a fascinating area caught up with political reactions to the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolution. The history of the last 500 years or so has seen a shift from men and women largely being in a complementary relationship to one where they are encouraged to compete with each other. This is having effects for good and ill on both sides, and is arguably only working to the advantage of a small minority of either group. When you couple this with the hyper individualism that has become the dominant approach to society it appears to be a toxic brew that exacerbates and reconfigures underlying economic disparities.

We need to find a way to get back to a more complementary approach and a more community based society because setting everyone up as in a fee for all race is something only a few can win and most will lose even if they don’t recognise that they are losing.

“get back to a more complementary approach” means pushing traditional gender roles, i.e. telling women to get back in the kitchen. This is stupid. It won’t be popular with women. I, as a man, am very happen with more overlapping gender roles.

If there’s a problem with too much competition in the labour market, that’s because of companies increasingly treating their employees as interchangeable and disposable units. Better protection for labour is the answer there.

I’m against telling anyone anything about the way they structure themselves. However if the only value society places on you is your earning power then a number of tricks get missed. We are very bad at quantifying value in anything other than monetary terms. The housewife/mother who does limited paid work is not for everyone but not having a means of valuing the contribution of those who would choose that option is not good. Deciding that there is only one approach to womanhood is every bit as myopic as pushing a certain type of masculinity. At present it’s not clear that society is working for most of us.

Monksfield

nico679 said:

The alleged fight to save masculinity is an unsaid part of Trumps campaign , aided and abetted by the Stepford Wives who want their husband to go a-hunting and then come home and bang them mercilessly.

I read hang as bang there!

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

The greatest sadness surrounding a Trump win would be because his opponent was a woman. Every other political norm subverted by misogyny.

Already happened in 2016 when he beat Hillary, a white woman as he beat Haley a white woman in the primaries this year. Harris is a black woman though so might get a few more black male votes than Hillary and Haley

Foxy

maxh said:

HYUFD said:

There is certainly a problem with some young men in low status jobs if employed at all and unable to find a female partner turning to the likes of Tate and the populist right. Trump, Reform UK, the AfD, Vox, Wilders, the Sweden Democrats, Le Pen etc all do better with men than women and significantly better with young men than young women.

While the header article has some good ideas, the best way to limit so called toxic masculinity is to find them good jobs and stable relationships

I agree, and as always find the comments here enlightening. Combine your point here with @Foxy's immediately afterwards (thanks Foxy - I hadn't seen that article but agree it's instructive) and I think the relative educational attainment of men and women is an important factor.

My eldest child has just started primary school. He was at a forest school previously, and seemed utterly in his element climbing trees and covering himself in mud (as did everyone there of whatever gender). Since starting school he has found the sedentary days quite difficult and (anecdotally) this has been a harder transition than it is for most girls in his class.

I wonder if there is something structural in primary education that turns off most boys more than it turns off most girls and initiates this attainment gap? No doubt the gender of most primary teachers is a bit of a factor, but perhaps also the design of the school day.

It's a bit of an older population, but we found on our Medical School admissions interviews that males underscored females on the communications stations at age 18. This was not reflected in in course achievement. It seems as they were slower developers, but got there in the end. We restructured the assessments to even things up a bit, testing analytic skills additionally etc.

I recently read a fascinating book "Billy No-mates" looking at male friendships and how they work. It is an easy read, being by a comedian not a sociologist.

Billy No-Mates: How I Realised Men Have a Friendship Problem https://amzn.eu/d/fa1pUwL

In it he looks at how men and women socialise, and the different styles of doing so. Obviously there is considerable overlap, but basically girls socialise around relationships (hence why Social Media bullying is more hurtful to girls) while boys do around sport, or tasks (hence why gaming addiction is so hurtful to boys)

Baden Powell was a strange fellow, but essentially right about this a century ago. Get boys off street corners and doing things together, whether team sports, outdoor pursuits or construction tasks.

Stereodog

SandyRentool said:

I still see women having to deal with a load of shite in a male dominated workplace.

You don't realise how deep seated it is unless you have female colleagues who trust you enough to open up and describe their experiences.

This is so true. In a recent job I had an amazing female colleague who did a highly demanding job with no thanks whatsoever from her manager. I was brought on to assist with a particular piece of work and it was embarrassing how during meetings he'd praise every little thing I did but totally ignore her hard work.

geoffw

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

malcolmg

Stuartinromford said:

FPT:

RochdalePioneers said:

WildernessPt2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ed Miliband to roll out pylons despite official report showing burying cables can be cheaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/12/ed-milliband-pylons-report-underground-cables-cheaper/ (£££)

The issue seems to be that burying cables may be cheaper but is also slower.

"Ed Miliband’s reckless 2030 decarbonisation target", I love this government so much, it's just beautiful to watch it in action.

I’m saying it again and again, but miliband will be the ruin of this government if he doesn’t end up changing his plans. Energy will be ruinously expansive for consumers and industry without huge public subsidy, and that assumes that he dkesnt take seriously to end natural gas usage by 2030. Add on top of price it will be unstable and liable to routine brownout.

Of course a pragmatist will be “well we didn’t get there but a bit more renewables wont do any harm”, but he wants the energy revolution. He’s not interested in pragmatism.

Brownouts? We’ve gone past peak risk for that already, surely? We have had a chronic lack of generating capacity thanks to post financial crash decisions. Now that so much more renewable capacity is coming on stream, with battery storage to back it up, we’ll be ok.

I think I have got to a point now where if the Telegraph are running a story on something I largely ignore it. Their “journalism” increasingly consists of unhinged barely factual smears desperately trying to find any issue they can to persuade the Tory members that they are absolutely right to be ramping hard right candidates as their way back to government.

I think this is the report being discussed:

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/304496/download

Key curious thing.

The conventional (AC pylons) solution is cheaper if we do it to a 2030 deadline, rather than holding it back to 2034. Which is what makes the underground setup look competitive, and is pretty much the opposite of the Telegraph spin.

(There are other limits on the DC underground setup- harder to upgrade, supply challenges and the AC/DC converters being not nice things to be by.)

I'm going with "cherry-picking statistics like a drunk bloke using a lamppost".

Pylons look like shit though especially for poor sods who have to live near or under

HYUFD

Foxy said:

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

Thanks for an interesting header.

Have you seen this article?

https://www.ft.com/content/17606f25-1d03-4f37-b7f4-f39989af9bde



It's a world wide phenomenon that young women are now better educated than men, and the earnings gap has closed or inverted as a result. This does tend to revert to the usual gender gap once over 30 for a variety of reasons, or at least still does.

The average man is no longer likely to be the breadwinner to a family in the way that might have been the case a few decades past. If men want "Trad Wives" they need to be in a position be Trad Husbands, and few are. Either they need to adapt to changing social structures or are going to remain single.

Men with a degree still earn more than women graduates but women non graduates earn more than male non graduates and it is non graduate males turning to Trump and populist right

Stereodog

nico679 said:

The alleged fight to save masculinity is an unsaid part of Trumps campaign , aided and abetted by the Stepford Wives who want their husband to go a-hunting and then come home and bang them mercilessly.

It's also worth remembering that there are similar toxic internet trends trying to create a crisis of femininity too. Just look at the trad wives trend.

Benpointer

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

La tarte tatin te dit bonjour!

malcolmg

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Benpointer

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Overall life is a lot better now for most than when we were kids Malcolm. It's just that we only remember the good bits from our youth.

geoffw

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

La tarte tatin te dit bonjour!

That is tarte Tatin (capitalised because named after the Tatin sisters who invented it)

stjohn

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

Delicious but not healthy in excess. Mary Queen of Scots first husband died from a surfeit of dauphinoise potatoes if I recall correctly.

WildernessPt2

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Infinitely better.

Benpointer

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

La tarte tatin te dit bonjour!

That is tarte Tatin (capitalised because named after the Tatin sisters who invented it)

Hah touché!

MarqueeMark

The quality of scandals in this country has dropped alarmingly. There was a time when a front-page "VIP escort" story didn't involve a police motorcade...

I blame that Starmer.

malcolmg

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Overall life is a lot better now for most than when we were kids Malcolm. It's just that we only remember the good bits from our youth.

I wonder Ben, speaking personally I had unlimited freedom , no iphone or computer but we made our own fun , roamed the countryside and had lots of pals, we walked to school , were always outdoors and were as fit as butcher's dogs. All you hear about nowadays is kids sit in their rooms on machines, mental health issues , cannot be allowed out on their own , etc.

malcolmg

WildernessPt2 said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Infinitely better.

name some of that infinitely

malcolmg

stjohn said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

Delicious but not healthy in excess. Mary Queen of Scots first husband died from a surfeit of dauphinoise potatoes if I recall correctly.

How many spuds would you need to eat to kill you.

nico679

Are you all excited and biting your fingernails as we await the release of not 1 but 3 new US national polls !

I need to get out more .....

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

Thanks for an interesting header.

Have you seen this article?

https://www.ft.com/content/17606f25-1d03-4f37-b7f4-f39989af9bde



It's a world wide phenomenon that young women are now better educated than men, and the earnings gap has closed or inverted as a result. This does tend to revert to the usual gender gap once over 30 for a variety of reasons, or at least still does.

The average man is no longer likely to be the breadwinner to a family in the way that might have been the case a few decades past. If men want "Trad Wives" they need to be in a position be Trad Husbands, and few are. Either they need to adapt to changing social structures or are going to remain single.

Men with a degree still earn more than women graduates but women non graduates earn more than male non graduates and it is non graduate males turning to Trump and populist right

Yes, and that is the electoral significance, as per @maxh in the header.

It's interesting that contrary to much that is said on PB, being non-college educated is not good for career prospects. We are increasingly a knowledge based service economy.

I think that Tate and similar "alpha males" are selling a lie to their young followers, quite apart from the crassnees of their life style. Self evidently there can be few such "alpha males" and most will fail if they try, thereby feeling double failures, and for many the only route to such a lifestyle is dealing drugs or crypto-scams, neither likely to be a sound foundation in life.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

The greatest sadness surrounding a Trump win would be because his opponent was a woman. Every other political norm subverted by misogyny.

Already happened in 2016 when he beat Hillary, a white woman as he beat Haley a white woman in the primaries this year. Harris is a black woman though so might get a few more black male votes than Hillary and Haley

Haley isn't white.

maxh

Benpointer said:

Very interesting header @maxh - thank you.

One thing that puzzles me is that your positive model for masculinity is not, in my opinion, any different from the default 'approved' model that applies across today's society. It is definitely a long way away from the model of masculinity that was prevalent when I was growing up as boy back in the 1960s - none of your three sub-bullets would have been widely accepted then.

So yes, your model is great, but not radical. I think it's the rebellion against the kind of model you are propounding that drives the popularity of Trump, Tate, etc. amongst disaffected males. I've not read Bola's book but that sounds like the outlier to me - which is probably why he can get it published.

Notwithstanding the above, your header was really thought-provoking. Thanks.

You're kind in your comments but I think your central point rather skewers my article in a way I agree with.

I struggled to formulate that positive model in a way that kept to 600 words or so (I rarely read headers longer than that so try to keep mine short). As I sent it to TSE I had a nagging feeling it was lacking something - you've clarified for me what I think it lacks.

To expand a bit more, my issue with JJ Bola's book is that it seemed to want to deny
masculinity rather than offer a model that the
majority of boys growing up could identify with. I

think in some senses society as a whole does this
to many boys at the moment - boys can't see a space for their expression of masculinity (and so are vulnerable to Trump, Tate etc).

In part as a result of insightful comments here, if I was to rewrite it I'd focus more on the structures of society (eg primary school) and how they can bettercreate space for different healthy expressions of masculinity.

It's what I love about PB - I've learnt lots this morning.

Luckyguy1983

MarqueeMark said:

The quality of scandals in this country has dropped alarmingly. There was a time when a front-page "VIP escort" story didn't involve a police motorcade...

I blame that Starmer.

I don't think scandals of the sex variety are really allowed to happen any more. Post-Leveson, not only do the papers have to stand things up (rightly) a judge has to agree that they are in the public interest. It's very unhealthy, and part of the reason the UK is waaay down the list of free countries with some rather unsavoury friends these days.

Cookie

My view is that reports of the decline of masculinity are probably premature. For a couple of generations, the relative value of masculine work has been dropping, but I can see this reversing - I'd rather be a plumber or a joiner or a soldier in tge forthcoming decades than a doctor or an academic or an HR drone.

Benpointer

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Overall life is a lot better now for most than when we were kids Malcolm. It's just that we only remember the good bits from our youth.

I wonder Ben, speaking personally I had unlimited freedom , no iphone or computer but we made our own fun , roamed the countryside and had lots of pals, we walked to school , were always outdoors and were as fit as butcher's dogs. All you hear about nowadays is kids sit in their rooms on machines, mental health issues , cannot be allowed out on their own , etc.

Yes, same for me, all true...

But just watch any documentary from the 60s to see how grey and miserable life was for most.

I agree we should give kids much more freedom though - I can't quite work out why we stopped that. The world is not any more dangerous now than it was then.

SandyRentool

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

The quality of scandals in this country has dropped alarmingly. There was a time when a front-page "VIP escort" story didn't involve a police motorcade...

I blame that Starmer.

I don't think scandals of the sex variety are really allowed to happen any more. Post-Leveson, not only do the papers have to stand things up (rightly) a judge has to agree that they are in the public interest. It's very unhealthy, and part of the reason the UK is waaay down the list of free countries with some rather unsavoury friends these days.

Consenting adults having sex should not be considered to be a scandal.

MarqueeMark

Interesting detail in the podcast on the polling in Pennsylvania. Some seriously dodgy stuff from Republican-aligned pollsters, including excluding 90% of the voters from Democrat-favouring Philadelphia in their samples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz257tCN708 from 3m 20 in

A cynical person might just think that the Republicans are flooding the state with dodgy polls that pump up the Republicans by nefarious means, in order to allow Trump to wail on November 6th that he was robbed. Again.

stjohn

malcolmg said:

stjohn said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

Delicious but not healthy in excess. Mary Queen of Scots first husband died from a surfeit of dauphinoise potatoes if I recall correctly.

How many spuds would you need to eat to kill you.

Depends how many there are in a surfeit I guess. 56? If they were King Edwards and they were eaten without his permission, one might be enough.

Mexicanpete

MarqueeMark said:

The greatest sadness surrounding a Trump win would be because his opponent was a woman. Every other political norm subverted by misogyny.

The greatest sadness?

I suspect there will many tears shed by the Beyond Thunderdome generations.

Casino_Royale

Excellent piece. At the moment, far too many young boys and men are fed a cocktail of propaganda that they are a latent problem just for being who they are. There's no positivity, aspiration or hope. Nothing that instills in them self-confidence or self-belief. That leads them to switch off, resent what they're being told, and turn to dunderheads like Tate and Trump, who at least share their contempt of the same people.

The only answer the Liberal establishment has to this is to increase lessons on misogyny and sexism, which is precisely the wrong way to go about it; it's like trying to put a fire out by throwing more matchboxes on it, and shines a light on their limited intelligence.

Until both sides can start to have positive and inspiring conversations about what is possible for everyone, stopping the "othering" of groups, and respecting each person as an individual with limitless potential in a shared society, the polarisation will continue and get nastier.

Carnyx

malcolmg said:

stjohn said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

Delicious but not healthy in excess. Mary Queen of Scots first husband died from a surfeit of dauphinoise potatoes if I recall correctly.

How many spuds would you need to eat to kill you.

Potatoes? in 1560?!

dixiedean

maxh said:

Benpointer said:

Very interesting header @maxh - thank you.

One thing that puzzles me is that your positive model for masculinity is not, in my opinion, any different from the default 'approved' model that applies across today's society. It is definitely a long way away from the model of masculinity that was prevalent when I was growing up as boy back in the 1960s - none of your three sub-bullets would have been widely accepted then.

So yes, your model is great, but not radical. I think it's the rebellion against the kind of model you are propounding that drives the popularity of Trump, Tate, etc. amongst disaffected males. I've not read Bola's book but that sounds like the outlier to me - which is probably why he can get it published.

Notwithstanding the above, your header was really thought-provoking. Thanks.

You're kind in your comments but I think your central point rather skewers my article in a way I agree with.

I struggled to formulate that positive model in a way that kept to 600 words or so (I rarely read headers longer than that so try to keep mine short). As I sent it to TSE I had a nagging feeling it was lacking something - you've clarified for me what I think it lacks.

To expand a bit more, my issue with JJ Bola's book is that it seemed to want to deny
masculinity rather than offer a model that the
majority of boys growing up could identify with. I

think in some senses society as a whole does this
to many boys at the moment - boys can't see a space for their expression of masculinity (and so are vulnerable to Trump, Tate etc).

In part as a result of insightful comments here, if I was to rewrite it I'd focus more on the structures of society (eg primary school) and how they can bettercreate space for different healthy expressions of masculinity.

It's what I love about PB - I've learnt lots this morning.

It's an excellent, thought provoking header Max, thank you.
It's wider than Primary though. The whole education system needs tearing down and rebuilding from first principles.

maxh

Stereodog said:

maxh said:

Stereodog said:

I'm not sure about this argument

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

I'm not sure about this argument to be honest. I think the points you make in your post are well meant but you're defining masculinity in a particular way which is as alien to as many men as it embraces. I wasn't anywhere close to a traditional model of masculinity at school and feel lucky to have grown up in an era where that was tolerated. I think we'd be better off trying to ensure that this tolerance runs the gamut of personalities rather than implicitly trying to re-establish a slightly updated version of what a 'normal' man should be like.

Very fair challenge, thanks.

I'm not intending to create an exclusive definition but an inclusive one - to answer your point directly I think we should be tolerant of the full gamut of personalities other than those who seek their own validation by harming others.

Thanks for the response and I know that you're not trying to create an exclusive definition of masculinity and your piece has generated some brilliant discussion. I just think that framing the discussion in terms of masculinity does that by default because it's a binary concept. If you're not masculine then what are you? I think the problem is real but as others have said the cause has more to do with educational and employment opportunities than it does identity. Unscrupulous internet celebrities and politicians make it about identity because it's easier to exploit

Again, really useful challenge, thanks. As I've just written in another comment I think the debate this.morning is pushing my thinking on lots (not least your comments - thanks).

In a way that I couldn't necessarily have articulated when I wrote the piece I agree that focusing on identity obscures the real issues, and can see that it can exclude even when I'm not meaning it too.

Mexicanpete

MarqueeMark said:

Interesting detail in the podcast on the polling in Pennsylvania. Some seriously dodgy stuff from Republican-aligned pollsters, including excluding 90% of the voters from Democrat-favouring Philadelphia in their samples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz257tCN708 from 3m 20 in

A cynical person might just think that the Republicans are flooding the state with dodgy polls that pump up the Republicans by nefarious means, in order to allow Trump to wail on November 6th that he was robbed. Again.

Isn't that the point of all these recent red state rallies?

Remember, these f****** are seriously tooled up.

Casino_Royale

Cookie said:

Interesting article, with which I agree with more than I disagree. Particularly the firsf and final bullets. I think an important distinction to make is that it's not that young men are voting right out of enthusiasm for some sort of Andrew Tate vision of masculinity, but voting AGAINST a left which continues to demonise them and prioritise women over them.

It's very hard to vote for a candidate who appears to dislike you. And many on the left and in the centre appear by their language to dislike men.

And then they post idiotic things that men better shape up and get with the programme or they will stay single.

There's a certain type of radical feminist or Lib who thinks the answer to women being second-class citizens in society in the past is that it's now the turn of men to have a go.

Taz

malcolmg said:

Stuartinromford said:

FPT:

RochdalePioneers said:

WildernessPt2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ed Miliband to roll out pylons despite official report showing burying cables can be cheaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/12/ed-milliband-pylons-report-underground-cables-cheaper/ (£££)

The issue seems to be that burying cables may be cheaper but is also slower.

"Ed Miliband’s reckless 2030 decarbonisation target", I love this government so much, it's just beautiful to watch it in action.

I’m saying it again and again, but miliband will be the ruin of this government if he doesn’t end up changing his plans. Energy will be ruinously expansive for consumers and industry without huge public subsidy, and that assumes that he dkesnt take seriously to end natural gas usage by 2030. Add on top of price it will be unstable and liable to routine brownout.

Of course a pragmatist will be “well we didn’t get there but a bit more renewables wont do any harm”, but he wants the energy revolution. He’s not interested in pragmatism.

Brownouts? We’ve gone past peak risk for that already, surely? We have had a chronic lack of generating capacity thanks to post financial crash decisions. Now that so much more renewable capacity is coming on stream, with battery storage to back it up, we’ll be ok.

I think I have got to a point now where if the Telegraph are running a story on something I largely ignore it. Their “journalism” increasingly consists of unhinged barely factual smears desperately trying to find any issue they can to persuade the Tory members that they are absolutely right to be ramping hard right candidates as their way back to government.

I think this is the report being discussed:

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/304496/download

Key curious thing.

The conventional (AC pylons) solution is cheaper if we do it to a 2030 deadline, rather than holding it back to 2034. Which is what makes the underground setup look competitive, and is pretty much the opposite of the Telegraph spin.

(There are other limits on the DC underground setup- harder to upgrade, supply challenges and the AC/DC converters being not nice things to be by.)

I'm going with "cherry-picking statistics like a drunk bloke using a lamppost".

Pylons look like shit though especially for poor sods who have to live near or under

There was a bungalow for sale recently in Southampton, IIRC, that had a pylon on the front lawn !

maxh

I'm off with the kids for a while - glad this has prompted some insightful debate. I'll catch up later.

malcolmg

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Overall life is a lot better now for most than when we were kids Malcolm. It's just that we only remember the good bits from our youth.

I wonder Ben, speaking personally I had unlimited freedom , no iphone or computer but we made our own fun , roamed the countryside and had lots of pals, we walked to school , were always outdoors and were as fit as butcher's dogs. All you hear about nowadays is kids sit in their rooms on machines, mental health issues , cannot be allowed out on their own , etc.

Yes, same for me, all true...

But just watch any documentary from the 60s to see how grey and miserable life was for most.

I agree we should give kids much more freedom though - I can't quite work out why we stopped that. The world is not any more dangerous now than it was then.

Two things I can think of are many more cars and opportunity for wrongs un's to get about, access to stuff to encourage their fetishes etc.

Nigelb

maxh said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Knocked on a door last week was told by the normally conservative voting lady that she was voting for the woman candidate because, she is a woman.
Does that make her an incel?

Seems to me many “models for masculinity” seem to be an effort to try and turn men into women. “Wouldn’t it be easier if men were more like women”. I’m not other people’s keepers and I’m not going to call out someone else for whatever is -phobia of the week. I don’t want to cry more often, I don’t want to “let it all out” or share with friends.

I agree about efforts to try to 'squash' masculinity - that's what I feel Mask Off was trying to do. Men (who want to be) should be men, in whatever way they want to be as long as it doesn't harm others.

It would just be quite nice if they didn't feel the need to riot and/or vote for a narcissist that is offering them an opportunity to turn back the clock on the subjugation of women.

Interesting header; the last part was very good indeed.
You should apologise to JJ Bola for mentioning him at all. Kudos for getting through his book.

Mexicanpete

Taz said:

malcolmg said:

Stuartinromford said:

FPT:

RochdalePioneers said:

WildernessPt2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ed Miliband to roll out pylons despite official report showing burying cables can be cheaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/12/ed-milliband-pylons-report-underground-cables-cheaper/ (£££)

The issue seems to be that burying cables may be cheaper but is also slower.

"Ed Miliband’s reckless 2030 decarbonisation target", I love this government so much, it's just beautiful to watch it in action.

I’m saying it again and again, but miliband will be the ruin of this government if he doesn’t end up changing his plans. Energy will be ruinously expansive for consumers and industry without huge public subsidy, and that assumes that he dkesnt take seriously to end natural gas usage by 2030. Add on top of price it will be unstable and liable to routine brownout.

Of course a pragmatist will be “well we didn’t get there but a bit more renewables wont do any harm”, but he wants the energy revolution. He’s not interested in pragmatism.

Brownouts? We’ve gone past peak risk for that already, surely? We have had a chronic lack of generating capacity thanks to post financial crash decisions. Now that so much more renewable capacity is coming on stream, with battery storage to back it up, we’ll be ok.

I think I have got to a point now where if the Telegraph are running a story on something I largely ignore it. Their “journalism” increasingly consists of unhinged barely factual smears desperately trying to find any issue they can to persuade the Tory members that they are absolutely right to be ramping hard right candidates as their way back to government.

I think this is the report being discussed:

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/304496/download

Key curious thing.

The conventional (AC pylons) solution is cheaper if we do it to a 2030 deadline, rather than holding it back to 2034. Which is what makes the underground setup look competitive, and is pretty much the opposite of the Telegraph spin.

(There are other limits on the DC underground setup- harder to upgrade, supply challenges and the AC/DC converters being not nice things to be by.)

I'm going with "cherry-picking statistics like a drunk bloke using a lamppost".

Pylons look like shit though especially for poor sods who have to live near or under

There was a bungalow for sale recently in Southampton, IIRC, that had a pylon on the front lawn !

Before I bought Castell Pete I looked at a new build in Talbot Green (taste and youth are incompatible). In the back garden was one foot of a buzzing electricity pylon. I declined, but I could have saved myself a fortune in jungle gym climbing equipment through the subsequent years.

malcolmg

SandyRentool said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

The quality of scandals in this country has dropped alarmingly. There was a time when a front-page "VIP escort" story didn't involve a police motorcade...

I blame that Starmer.

I don't think scandals of the sex variety are really allowed to happen any more. Post-Leveson, not only do the papers have to stand things up (rightly) a judge has to agree that they are in the public interest. It's very unhealthy, and part of the reason the UK is waaay down the list of free countries with some rather unsavoury friends these days.

Consenting adults having sex should not be considered to be a scandal.

spoilsport

malcolmg

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

stjohn said:

geoffw said:

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

TimS said:

On the topic of masculinity it’s a mild Sunday morning here in the Maconnais, the church bell is ringing down in St Vincent des Pres, the birds are cheeping and crows cawing, and gunshots are ringing out across the hillsides like some rural gangland shootout. It must be a day for la chasse.

That’s what the trad husbands around here do. Head out in their battered old Renaults on a Sunday wearing orange hi vis, rifles over the shoulder and dogs at heel, bag a few boar or deer, then head back to the salle des fetes where the trad wives, specs on and dyed hair cropped to a couple of inches, are preparing the salads and gratin dauphinoise.

dauphinois

The gratin has learnt to become more feminine.

Then it should be gratine

Delicious but not healthy in excess. Mary Queen of Scots first husband died from a surfeit of dauphinoise potatoes if I recall correctly.

How many spuds would you need to eat to kill you.

Potatoes? in 1560?!

Secret stashes Carnyx

Casino_Royale

ToryJim said:

It’s a fascinating area caught up with political reactions to the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolution. The history of the last 500 years or so has seen a shift from men and women largely being in a complementary relationship to one where they are encouraged to compete with each other. This is having effects for good and ill on both sides, and is arguably only working to the advantage of a small minority of either group. When you couple this with the hyper individualism that has become the dominant approach to society it appears to be a toxic brew that exacerbates and reconfigures underlying economic disparities.

We need to find a way to get back to a more complementary approach and a more community based society because setting everyone up as in a fee for all race is something only a few can win and most will lose even if they don’t recognise that they are losing.

Excellent post.

Malmesbury

Stereodog said:

nico679 said:

The alleged fight to save masculinity is an unsaid part of Trumps campaign , aided and abetted by the Stepford Wives who want their husband to go a-hunting and then come home and bang them mercilessly.

It's also worth remembering that there are similar toxic internet trends trying to create a crisis of femininity too. Just look at the trad wives trend.

Which, like all the other bullshit, has a real issue buried miles deep.

Many women find the expectation to have a full career, look like a model, have a perfect family and a perfect home exhausting and unsatisfying.

Especially when the reality of not being able to do 10 things at once intrudes.

Stuartinromford

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Overall life is a lot better now for most than when we were kids Malcolm. It's just that we only remember the good bits from our youth.

I wonder Ben, speaking personally I had unlimited freedom , no iphone or computer but we made our own fun , roamed the countryside and had lots of pals, we walked to school , were always outdoors and were as fit as butcher's dogs. All you hear about nowadays is kids sit in their rooms on machines, mental health issues , cannot be allowed out on their own , etc.

Yes, same for me, all true...

But just watch any documentary from the 60s to see how grey and miserable life was for most.

I agree we should give kids much more freedom though - I can't quite work out why we stopped that. The world is not any more dangerous now than it was then.

Two things I can think of are many more cars and opportunity for wrongs un's to get about, access to stuff to encourage their fetishes etc.

Cars are probably a lot of it. I've recently had a couple of "can X go to Y unaccompanied" conversations involving my kids, and a large part of them did boil down to the road safety thing. As more roads get more congested, the distance you can go before hitting something fundamentally unsafe shrinks.

Not so sure about the perverts thing, though that's often cited. Jimmy Saville didn't need the internet.

OldKingCole

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Of course gains for women have come at the expense of men. Men had disproportionate power and influence. As this rebalances, it was inevitable that men would say they were losing.

The challenge is money. So many of the young men now protesting against this “losing” vs women point out that they personally have little or no power. That is class and money, not gender.

Partly it is also about the decline of the traditional family unit

Traditional family units had working class families with kids leaving school at 15 with minimal education, the boys to work in factories or industry, the girls to work in shops and then raise kids with a man. That was the sum total of ambition for whole generations.

You think things are better nowadays?

Overall life is a lot better now for most than when we were kids Malcolm. It's just that we only remember the good bits from our youth.

I wonder Ben, speaking personally I had unlimited freedom , no iphone or computer but we made our own fun , roamed the countryside and had lots of pals, we walked to school , were always outdoors and were as fit as butcher's dogs. All you hear about nowadays is kids sit in their rooms on machines, mental health issues , cannot be allowed out on their own , etc.

I'd dispute the bit about being 'as fit as butchers dogs'; chicken pox, measles and whooping cough were rife, and could be fatal.

And, although the trends were there years before, Covid did a lot of harm, with which we have by no means yet fully come to terms.