yes I really liked it. Even the analysis/hypothesis that it really is the moment of „not getting pandered to“ that enrages that demographic. Any moment they do not feel like the target audience they take grave offense.

I think it really goes to show how reality bending it is when so much wealth is concentrated on singular people and that it’s just not healthy for us as a society.

Like even if he was a saint I don’t want any human to have direct control over so many things ESPECIALLY if he was not elected to do so in any capacity.

That he specifically has so many many „views“ on things I do not agree with just makes it that much more egregious

Interesting article!

I haven’t been in a dedicated men only group chat but I can imagine that if you get the right guys in a group it might just be „that easy“. I think it’s a great space to try and model how you want to interact with your peers.

And I’m glad to hear that the author has that support group in his life :)

I personally also find it a bit easier to share heavy topics over texting rather than talking.

I like Dr. K and I like the video.

I like how he articulates how emotions or circumstances are constructed for men to be solved. Not to be articulated, pondered upon and to feel much about. If you have a problem you should solve it basically. "Man the fuck up" as he points out.

His depiction of "men atriculating feelings differently" with showcasing how men can be kind of "harsh/unfriendly" in their communication of affection (basically soft bullying/negging in his examples) instead of saying: hey I really like you and stuff. He calls it negative expression for positive affection is fine I think. Tangent: [But I dunno - like I know I just read The will to change form Bell Hooks and am so happy she really writes what I've been thinking and mulling about for years - but I am missing this critique of what we are taught and into what social constructs we are born into. Dr. K mentions that we are taught this and I get that he doesn't wanna get too political about it. But why are "all men like this" and why can't men escape this even if they tried? I'd argue it's because socialisation and patriachy keeps it that way. The idea that men have to be domineering, controlling and a leader at all times. And this totally warped perception that control and domination can only be linked to (physical) violence and the readiness to use it as well as emotional coldness and distance.] Tangent over

I like that he really touches upon the physicality of emotions, that psychotherapy is often just the talking cure but that there are also physical ways of dealing with strong emotions. I also like that he states that he feels that hugging feels more important to men than his women clients. But here I'd also argue that it is linked to my aforementioned tangent. That it is this artifical distance men are forced into that starves them from literal connection/touch.

I also like him mentioning different/supplemental therapies more geared towards men. There are a lot of upcoming/developing therapy approaches. I know the last time I looked it up I found one centred around "adventure therapy" which sounded like a 5-day nature retreat for men only where they were hiking, and doing survival stuffs while talking in the evening/ in between exercises to connect.

So yeah, I think it's an informative video. Personally I would've loved some feminist partiachial critique of male socialisation yada yada. Otherwise thanks for sharing, I only had it on my to watch list, but you gave me the push to commit for it :)

Edit: I'd honestly say that while I think it is alright to not feel as articulate about your own emotions I think it is just a good practice to at least consistently try to get better at it. So much of our communication with others is easier when we get across what we truly want. So I think talking is really effective (but obviously I love talking with this wall of text:))

Thanks for starting off the discussion!

I don’t feel pressured to be useful and it’s one of the adjectives I never felt comfortable applying to myself. I’d say it’s one of the adjectives as a gay man that has made me feel like I don’t belong in straight male spaces that I was an imposter who didn’t know how to behave in them and who was fundamentally an outsider.

I’ve nowadays become very comfortable with accepting that I still wouldn’t use useful as an adjective or concept for myself and still feel happy with myself. That pressure in the past was crazy uncomfortable to me though as it just wasn’t a natural fit for me so I totally empathise with anyone struggling with it.

So glad I got around to watching it - was perfect during cooking.

I really resonated with the perspective of how supporting the prison system or judicial system is fundamentally in support of a status quo and a way of not changing inherent system issues and problems like wellfare, housing, immigration statuses, brutal policing. Saying that getting an abuser arrested is **always ** the right choice in this carceral feminist perspective is I think harmful as Olisunvia points out. I also really appreciated how she touched upon the topic that calls for transformative or restorative justice don't mean that victims are meant to always forgive abusers or even use the current systems.

Generally the attitude to hold an either/and perspective of acknowledging that someone is an abuser and has done harm while still also acknowledging that they themselves can be a victim and symptoms of the system is very valuable to have I think. I don't think it's a perspective we can always hold but I think it's incredibly constructive in making sense of the social realities we live in.

Thanks for sharing the video - I had only seen her before during a F.D Signifier video and never checked her out individually, but I like her very articulate way of framing the discourse.

I think that’s a really good takeaway from it.

I also clearly felt that he knew something had to be addressed and I also hope that as you mentioned he might feel more empowered to ask the right questions to himself now and be better at exploring this issue he has.

And your comment about therapy deeply resonates with me so thanks for sharing that I haven’t had it my feelings regarding it so succinctly spelled out before.

I don't know all that much about his other content, but I feel he's quite good at expressing his views and experiences.

And while I think there are many many topics for men's liberation in general, I thought maybe a "less formal" post might also feel more approachable with less emphasis on theory or direct mentions of sociological issues.

that patriarchy might ostensibly benefit men – even while poisoning them in a myriad of ways – but it is upheld by all genders, particularly within spaces like romantic partnership

With this quote I was reminded of many retellings of men in hetero relationship who still vividly remembered hurtful moments of being shamed when opening up and being vulnerable.

As the article states I would argue it’s wrong to assume that just one gender is at fault for the status quo, but that it is maintained by multiple actors.

And yes I’ve seen a lot of heteropessimism online and even partially irl but I think it’s breeding ground are „taking things for granted“ and just assuming what partners would like or want in relationships. Needs can be so diverse and deeply personal that I’d argue while there is possibility to feel safe in following a relationship script we have to dare to explore each other in our uniqueness and thereby also share ourselves authentically and that’s a forever journey.

Thank you for the nice read spaduf! (by the way is that a pun on the pokemon or am I nerding out?)

Goodness what an appalling thing to read. I grew up catholic (I haven’t been religious for more than a decade already) and still have to shake my head about the ban women face there to even become clergywomen.

The idea that there should be segregation based on sex is just so fundamentally weird to me especially in the example of boarding public transit.

I do hope this worrying trend is circumvented because it’s become abundantly clear in present times that the moment rights/laws are lost, a long battle is needed to regain them.

Like is this ultraconservative trend so appealing because people feel the past was SOMEHOW more appealing than the current times? I totally do not get it but thank you for sharing!

As @akasazh says baby steps for sure and you got this!

I would argue however that there is a boogeyman that you can blame and that is capitalism, so there is always that.

Additionally as you have yourself mentioned just because we live in a partiachial society that doesn't mean that cis white men are always just winners, so I think the feeling of being overwhelmed and on your own and downtrodden by the system can be totally valid. Similarly to what @cmbabul mentioned, sure you can be a little bit more up the ladder but we are most likely all quite far away from the top :)

I hope that you feel empowered to reach out to others and connect. I am sure others share your sentiment. I think Lemmy has DMs so if you ever wanna just chat feel free to write me :)

Thank you for sharing!

I wholeheartedly agree but I would also argue that F.D. has a similar take at least the way I see it.

I would say he argues that while right grifters are nothing new they were usually not as successful and medially present as they are today. He attributes this to the fact that media engagement is the only metric that counts and that any sharing of a video leads to it being more present in the algorithm. Additionally he argues that in the past most men were able to eventually get a job and support themselves and a family and that with the rise of neoliberalism and worsening wages and inflation the rate of men who are able to do that has shrunk drastically leading to a rise of mental health illnesses but also suicides and other Deaths of Despair. Which have become a somewhat breeding ground for grifters to enrapture more men to their cause with their false promises.

Finally he argues that it is not in the interest to even try to appeal to men the same way the right does as it is - as you have yourself stated - fundamentally antithetical to our causes and beliefs. But that the focus should always be placed on changing the system and being active in our communities. And that changes to the system have to be understood as being beneficial to men as well (duh!).

So I think maybe my framing of his video was a bit too shallow, but thank you for posting your comment. I feel the same way especially in that "the left has failed men" has become an incredible oversimplification for a multilayered problem