In the 18th century, men (like George Washington) wore make-up, frilly clothes, fancy wigs and stockings. Why do they hate our founders so much?
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
63 points (88.9% liked)
politics
19243 readers
2752 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Things like that used to be an expression of wealth and power. Now with commodification and increased productivity, how will they express how powerful, resourceful, and therefore desirable they really are? What's the differentiation?
> how will they express how powerful, resourceful, and therefore desirable they really are?
Well the first step would be to come to terms with how powerless, unresourceful, and therefore undesirable they really are. From there they can take action to become what they want by improving themselves not by comparison with others, but by comparison to where they themselves were the day before.
The idea of exceptionalism is toxic if its not recognized as an ideal to aspire to, but likely never fully achieve. However, the journey there, and your realized gains in the effort are the real payoff. You become a better version of yourself by trying to improve, but circling back to the beginning: no improvement can occur if you don't recognize and acknowledge where we all start: Powerless and unresourceful.
All of the above applies irrespective of gender. If some men want to hang onto the idea of superiority over women simply because they are men, then they can take their old ideas with them to the dustbin of history.
I agree with the premise that defining one’s gender as “what the other gender doesn’t/can’t do” is limiting and will inevitably conflict as said other gender makes gains, but I disagree that this is an aspect of capitalism.
History is chock full of men bemoaning the current state of manhood and how modern (whatever age that is) man is actually modern woman, regardless of whether they barter, bow to a king, or buy stocks.
I overall liked the article, but feel the ending failed and it doesn't do any better at finding a solution than the Yang article it talks about.
>Like many such pronouncements, Yang’s argument supposes that male identity is effectively served up at a cultural condiment bar. Wounded and hostile men can simply order up different core elements of their identities, now that the undifferentiated forces of gender affiliation are granting permission for them to cry, to go to therapy, and have feelings. >In lieu of adopting Yang’s model of masculinity as a glorified college elective, many young men gravitate toward Shapiro and Peterson’s masculinist politics of all-purpose cultural affront.
The article then goes on the end basically the same thing...
>It’s admittedly hard to envision such a thing in a culture-war discourse so heavily invested in the idea of imperiled maleness, but a good place to start might be a frank acknowledgment of how much of this peril is self-imposed among gender-anxious men. Indeed, pace Reeves and Yang, boys and men in America are not all right—not because women are outearning them or outperforming them in some mythic sphere of gender fluidity. No, American boys and men are suffering because an American culture that outlines how to perform manliness following a solitary, stoic script of violent self-assertion is ruinous. If men relieve themselves from shackles of masochism and chauvinism anchored in this gendered ideology, they might learn that the most crucial role we could play in society is to free ourselves from this fundamentally unrewarding and self-harming image of ourselves
cool, but as mentioned the men that need to hear it won't be doing that, so it isn't actually a solution.
this article's kinda glossing over everything it's saying. claim after claim with little pausing to explain or cite. I dont know if they meant to say it but they did at least accidentally imply women are being given too much power. And then they quickly move on from that as if it's a natural given. And some mess talking about economics, and then giving a school shooting as an example that never references economics in any way. They're kinda just throwing fancy sounding terms haphazardly.
What masculinity crisis?
Explained in literally the first sentence of the article.
So the masculinity crisis is Ben Shapiro whining about the destruction of men? He's an authority on masculinity now?
If only there was an article that went further into detail on the subject.
If only.
Fine..
.. And done.
Dude... why are we using stereotypes as a point of reference? This article is trash. "Men today are anxious about x, y, z", but what reason do we have to believe that 80 years ago it was any different?
Like the basis of the article seems to be "men were fine until recent gender politics".
view more: next ›