this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
472 points (90.0% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3849 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican men seem massively troubled about their masculinity — and that's literally causing death and suffering

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HWK_290@lemmy.world 84 points 1 year ago

Men who work to limit women's autonomy over their own bodies, or for that matter conservative women who punch down to bolster their fragile status have serious issues to work on and should quit afflicting them on the rest of us.

Amen

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"manliness"

In this context, the definition is being a chronic asshole and getting away with it.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's so irritating that left-of-center publications always go all-in on anti-gun sentiment, while believing that a police state is going to save people. News flash: it won't. Cops don't care about you and have no responsibility to do anything to help you, or to prevent violence against you. Cops are often the ones involved in protecting the people on the right that use violence to suppress people on the left.

For fucks sake, we literally saw a full year of violence by police against peaceful BLM protestors that just want to stop extrajudicial police killings; we caw cops turn protests into riots, and then use the riots as their excuse for using more violence.

I reject their authoritarian leanings, in the same way that I reject the authoritarian bullshit from Republicans.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Your misunderstanding is thinking everyone left of center wants to round up all the guns, ripping them from the hands of everyone who wont give them willingly. Anyone who has thought about it knows we cant get rid of every last gun and it would be a tireless effort, like the war on drugs, to try.

No, I only ask we do a better job at regulating these weapons. It is no small task and it will always come down to how well a job our local communities are doing. The real issue is just as the article states, people aren't getting the social services they need and are being driven into poverty by an oppressive work culture. There is no way any poor community can deal with these issues with everything else that's going on while having zero resources.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not sure it would be a tireless effort:

Step 1: offer major tax incentives for turning in your gun. Turning in a $500 handgun? $2000 tax write off. Something like that.

Step 2: I believe we have serial numbers in all guns right? Could we then charge a license fee for their ownership? Own a $500 handgun? Fun ownership costs police more money to do their jobs. Pay a yearly $50 fee to keep your gun.

Step 2b: Along with that fee, before you can own a gun you must attend an extensive class on the use, safety, and safe storage of your gun. Understand if your gun is used by another, you bear a portion of blame if it is used improperly.

Step 2c: After initial training, must attend annual (or maybe biannual) refresher. These can be fun. A get together with other gun enthusiasts and the opportunity to shoot at a range together. But a reiteration of safety.

Even if that didn't get rid of all guns, the remaining ones would be much better taken care of. I think Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership but doesn't seem to have America's issue with them. I think the difference is training before they get their guns.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Until 75% of the country agrees with you that they don't want or need the right to bear arms, everything listed after step 1 is unconstitutional. The reason being that you cannot add cost or hoops to jump through to exercise rights. Test all of these with any other right and see how fucked up it is. The following should be taken slightly tongue in cheek, but illustrating the difference in treatment people have with the second clear through absurdity.

Step 1: Offer major tax incentives to not vote or wave your right to searches and seizures. Skip the presidential election? $2000 tax write off. Allow the police to search your home and vehicle at any time they want? $5000 tax write off.

Step 2: You have to have a state issued ID for services. Could we charge a license fee to access the polls, or perform any sort of protest action? Want to vote? $200 for your voter ID stamp that lasts 4 years. Want to join a protest or picket? The police might need to keep the peace. $50 per protest.

Step 2b: Along with these fees, before you can vote you need to attend an extensive class on the people and issues on the ballot, run by either the DNC or RNC based on if your state is red or blue (or whomever paid the most for the position). If you want to post politically inclined statements in print or electronically, you need to attend journalism training on safe words and opinions. Understand that if you hurt or offended someone with statements you made, you are legally responsible for that distress.

Step 2c: After initial voter education training, journalism training, and jury process training, you must attend at least biannual refresher courses to ensure you are educated on the recommended politicians and proposed laws, changes in acceptable speech and societal norms, and how to be a good juror to retain the right to a free jury. These can be fun. A get together of all your fellow citizens as you are reeducated on how the government wants you to use your rights.

This might not prevent people from voting for the wrong candidates and laws, but the remaining model citizens will keep the discord in society down. China has a vastly higher number of citizens than the US, but doesn't have all of the political instability and fighting. I think the difference is the mandatory citizen training and reeducation camps.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My point simply was you will never be able to get all the guns off the street. You can create incentives, laws, etc. but they will only be as effective as maybe the drug laws we enforce. Basically if we implemented what you suggested what we would get is better regulation. The end goal isn't forcibly remove all guns from circulation. So when it comes ro personal protection yes you can still pray to the mighty hand gun.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Seems to be a big deal when you start talking guns and mental health, but with all the fixations on "mass shootings", they lose this little stat:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

"In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were accidental, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined."

54% of those deaths were suicides. 26,368.

(43% murder, 3% "other", accidents, etc.)

Also in 2021, 38,358 men committed suicide compared to 9,825 women.

https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html

3.9:1, if almost 4x more women than men were dying for any reason, it would be a national crisis. "Something would have to be done!"

Mental health for men? Silence.

[–] keef@programming.dev 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hear what you are saying but I wouldn’t even say that line about if it were women it’d be a national crisis. Time has shown again and again that society will gladly throw away a group of people without needing to devalue your words with a statement like that.

Anyway there’s a lot of things to discuss around this.

We can dive into the societal role of men with being encouraged to bottle up because “grown men don’t cry” and toxic masculinity.

We can talk about rates of gun ownership between genders that is a big factor in suicide risk.

We can unpack the issue with people not having the money for mental health resources. Which can be solved through general wage increases or through the state.

The point is to say that instead of using a crisis to step another group of people we should be approaching these things from a point of intersectionality.

Edit: Just to be on topic I am completely for restrictions on guns as a easier means to dealing with shootings.

The crazy people shouting “dont take my guns” while also touting the line of “it’s a mental health isssue” without being open to addressing the that problem gets me so worked up.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

54% of those deaths were suicides. 26,368.

Mental health for men? Silence.

There are people who advocate for "men's rights" things, but they're mostly conservatives, and they leave out the horrifying statistics about gun ownership among men because they're also in the pocket of the gun lobby.

It's a taboo subject even amongst family members of those affected to talk about the role of firearms in suicide.

The reality is that gun ownership can turn a bad, lonely night into a person's last one by pure virtue of the fact that it's so readily available, and so often deadly.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 year ago (9 children)

People aren't silent about men successfully committing suicide at a higher rate to women. You hear about it all the time. However, it isn't an issue about men being overlooked, like you imply. Women attempt suicide at a higher rate. Why didn't you discuss that? Is it being ignored?

The fact of the matter is suicide by firearm is the worst offender. Attempted suicide needs to be prevented for everyone equally, but firearm ownership should be more restricted, and there should also be tools out there to get your firearms away from you temporarily if you're feeling suicidal or depressed. Men are more likely to own firearms, which is the issue that needs addressing to fix the disparity, not men being ignored.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You were doing so well until you tried the "People care so much more about women's health! Pity me!" line.

Strange how Viagra is required to be covered by all insurance but birth control isn't. Whose priorities are privileged there?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] charles@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

it would be a national crisis. "Something would have to be done!"

People are already saying something has to be done because it is a national crisis. Toxic gun culture prevents any serious actions

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

Comprehensive mental health care for all is not being blocked by gun culture, it's being blocked by the typical Republican calls of "SOCIALISM!!"

[–] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The right has been pretty open about what kind of America they want to live in and what they're willing to do to get there. We should all believe them and take them seriously, because they are fucking serious.

Fascist militias are popping up left and right, and the only gun control measures that pass end up restricting the rights of citizens in blue states while red states continue expanding their own. Unless you can magically disarm the entire nation simultaneously that cat is out of the bag.

I'm optimistic about the future and hold no deluded fantasies of armed conflict, but there may come a time where you'll wish you had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart is not going to come rescue you when they have you on your knees in front of a ditch.

Disarming the working class under the current hyper-capitalist regime doesn't really work in our favor either, and gun control is proven to be a political loser that equals to nothing more than a waste of time/effort and only serves to cripple a campaign in most instances.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago
[–] oce@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

Mental health is not considered enough in general. What makes you think it is worth for men?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I know this goes a bit off from the article (I skimmed). But I think a lot of this toxic masculinity comes from decades of media on what a American man should be.

They need to be strong, independent, smart (sometimes), ingenious, a natural leader, angry at the "system", can shoot any gun with perfection, solve most all problems with a gun or a fist fight, never show any type of remorse or trauma from their violent "solutions", muscular, always get the girl, only drink brown liquors or beer, never bend, never negotiate, always win, and can walk away from an explosion without flinching.

This shit has been around since the 1940's and it still in use today. It used to be the Lone Ranger, Superman, batman. Then it was the strong independent cowboy taking on the "savages", The 70's it was Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood taking on the Gangs of the inner cities. The 80's and 90's were Rambo and terminator, the 2000's with Mission Impossible, Jason Borne, John Wick. And James Bond all through out. Just to name a few

Not to take away from the entertainment of these movies and characters but I see lot's of men that take these fictional characters and try to make it their personality. But reality doesn't work that way. They can't go shoot your problems away. Hot women just don't fall leg spread for these guys (which makes them angrier). AND some men don't want to be this unrealistic version of an American man. Which for some reason pisses off those men that do want it....

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Agreed. However, something has to be said for the fact that a lot of American society and economy has shifted value away from "dangerous" or otherwise physically demanding labor (e.g. coal mining, farm field work before automation) towards jobs that don't depend on how much muscle mass you have or other expressions of sex hormones. That value system was encoded into cultural norms and media, which, without the corresponding environment, just became a caricature.

The problem of focusing too much on the culture is that we miss what shaped it in the first place: a need to feel valued. If men aren't valued for their physique (or, to be frank, their biological expendability), then what's their value? The Left was too afraid of ruining their Feminist credibility to offer any serious solutions. Meanwhile, the Right leaned in to that caricature, and offered a solution full of misogyny and arrogance. When presented a choice between an awful solution and no solution, it's no wonder so many men fell prey to toxicity.

We need more non-toxic masculinity.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] regalia@literature.cafe 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I run a bakery and helped a lady with a cake for her husband. She was constantly asking me if these were masculine enough colors and designs lol. I tricked them with trans pride colors. Worrying about your masculinity is one of the least masculine things you can do.

[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 15 points 1 year ago

Well, hopefully you didn't get her beaten by an abusive spouse.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have never eaten a cake that had "masculine features and designs"

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 11 months ago

How about a cake in the shape of a bicep, kind of like this flyer?

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

And also their tendency to unleash face-eating leopards.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Being manly is vital to the right wing.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] corstian@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

In my humble opinion all these fellas just seem to be running around like a beheaded chicken in search for the slightest amount self worth. Instead they started yearning for surrogates like wealth, power, status and what not.

The problem with these surrogates is that you cannot ever get enough of it. It'll never fill the gaping hole which is their sense of self.

[–] cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IMO, the focus should be on being a good person and not on conforming to unrealistic gender stereotypes. One's gender presentation (or lack) is enhanced by universal positive attributes like honesty, confidence, commitment, charity, etc. This is not an original idea, but thought it worth saying.

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Well said. We all spend a lot of time criticizing, and not enough time building up. Here are a few more (rather heavily paraphrased) ways to be a good person that I feel strongly about:

Admire people who recognize their insufficiency, mourn, show humility, seek justice, are merciful, have a pure heart, work for peace, or are oppressed for doing the right thing.

Understand you're incapable of perfection, and so is everybody else.

If you're angry with someone, call them an idiot, or curse them, beware of the consequences.

Settle conflict with others quickly before it escalates.

Be faithful to all your vows in both thought and action.

Resist the urge for vengeance; flip the script by going above and beyond for those who take advantage of you.

Give to those who ask for help or want to borrow what you have.

Stand out from the crowd by showing kindness and compassion to those who hate you.

load more comments
view more: next ›