34
submitted 2 weeks ago by nulluser@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

sigh

It's capitalism.

Men's well being wouldn't be tied to career prospects if it weren't for the rat race we are all brainwashed into since birth that is capitalism.

You have worth as a human beyond your capacity to produce profit.

[-] Saff@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah and the reason young men are finding it hard to have real life friends and end up on uncle forums is because we lost most of our “third spaces” thanks to them not making money and shutting down or being underfunded or closed if they were publicly owned.

Ontop of this the constant algorithms that push specific topics to people over and over due to it keeping them on the platform and therefore generates income.

It does feel like 75% of this problem could be fixed by stopping corporate greed and fixing our local communities as whole.

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I went to a Humans vs. Zombies Nerf war at a university campus a few weeks ago. A couple hundred people, real strong mix of men, women, and others. A healthy mingling of people who were clearly gun hobby adjacent and a lot of openly queer folk, which I think is really quite encouraging to see. Everyone had a good time, no issues the whole day. Good vibes all around.

At the end of the event, the student organizers tearfully announced that the school administration had decided to ban all blaster events on campus going forward. Fuck us all for trying to have a healthy good time, right?

load more comments (37 replies)
[-] blarghly@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

You have worth as a human beyond your capacity to produce profit.

This is only true in a vague, wishy-washy metaphysical sense. Fine, whatever, you have intrinsic value. If that warms your cockles, more power to you.

But the extent to which other people value you is entirely dependent on what you can provide to them. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Do you think that in a socialist society, a person who refused to do any work at all - not because they couldn't, but just because they didn't feel like it - would be shown general love and acceptance and kindness? No! They would, at best, be tolerated and given the bare necessities to survive - but they wouldnt be celebrated. Do you think primitive tribes love and support the lazy asshole who never contributes and just expects food to be brought to them every day? No, of course not! They kick that motherfucker out when they are dead weight.

And what you "provide" for other people doesn't have to make money. But it does need to provide some kind of value. Do you have a beautiful smile that brightens peoples' day? Are you tall enough to reach things on the top shelf, and willing to reach them for short people? Can you make hilarious dolphin sounds at parties? Are you a supportive friend who listens to others' struggles when they are down? No? You just sit your ass on the couch all day and watch TV and interact with basically no one? Then why the fuck would you expect anyone to value you, when you provide no value to them? This is not a capitalism problem. This is a human solution. Dead weight gets dropped. Period. Always has, always will.

[-] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

...But old people can retire. As long as they dont fuck up the government

[-] blarghly@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago
[-] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I figured it was obvious

[-] obbeel@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 1 week ago

I agree. People need to learn to get away from far-fetched fantasy if that doesn't translate to real value. I know it's harsh, but everyone needs to deal with reality.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Because a man’s prospects weren’t important in feudal, classical, and ancient societies?

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

No, they weren't. Class was much more important. There was no class climbing prospect. You either were born into a having family or you weren't. Even amongst peasants, men weren't suppose to "have a career" or a prospect. You inherited whatever your family had.

There was expectations of performance, of course. There was internal competition, but no peasant would ever realistically transform into nobility via merit or otherwise.

Those ignorant of history forget that our current worldviews and values weren't always universal. The notion of a linear career, of having prospects, to be successful, to grow from a low place and climb the social and financial rings, accumulating wealth enough to retire early then leave a lofty inheritance to children and grandchildren. All that is modern construction that is not present before the 19th century. Furthermore, the expectations that all the other poor people are lazy scumbags, but my poverty is merely a circumstantial setback is a very American exceptialism view.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

So you are saying that a father of a girl at any class level in a feudal society cared not about the ability of a mate to provide for his daughter or grandchildren?

That kings and earls didn’t bring wealth and power into matchmaking calculations?

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In general, no. It was a business transaction and whoever provided an appropriate dowry would get the girl. No matter their future prospects. The family didn't care much for whatever happened to the girl afterwards. High class and nobility might've care for prestige and title inheritance. But otherwise it didn't matter. We got so many historical novels with the plot point of a girl marrying a destitute nobleman and being abandoned by her original family that it is sort of a trope in the romantic period. Girl being sold by bankrupt father to save on food with one less mouth to feed was also a trope. You have to remember women weren't valued much beyond their capacity of bearing children. They were little more than cattle for most western feudal societies.

[-] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -2 points 2 weeks ago

"Career prospects" in this case means that men want to feel like they’re of use to society. The issue is only tied to capitalism in the sense that the current capitalist environment doesn’t offer many of them meaningful work. I’m not sure what alternative to capitalism you imagine would solve that problem - without also giving men those same career prospects they’re currently lacking. Taking care of and providing for the tribe is what we're hardcoded to get meaning from.

[-] obbeel@lemmy.eco.br 2 points 1 week ago

You don't need someone to create jobs for you, people just need to do useful stuff and it will get attention. As long as work is organized, it doesn't make sense someone would "create" a job for you. It's all about History. These neo-aristocrats have a hold on capital, so they decide what to do.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't care about work with this, just that no jobs are "created".

[-] pahlimur@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

I've seen so many men just suck at doing adult stuff in my life and career. It's not a problem of men not having the opportunity to show value, it's more that they expect to have value without providing anything. So if you feel useless, it's more of a you problem that current media allows you to blame other people for.

Capitalism is causing some of these issues. The core issue is men expecting the world to hand them a sense of value.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sometimes it helps to remember that a lot of people are actually hopelessly stupid. And this isn't like some elitist ivory tower commentary - there is a good percentage of the population which struggles with basic problem solving, knowledge synthesis, critical thought, etc.

"Advanced capitalism" is sometimes literally called a "knowledge economy" and this has really properly fucked people who could have previously earned a fine living doing mindless physical work. And again, this isn't like some normative statement - for most of human history this equation has been inverted, and intellectual opportunities were scarce. Honestly, part of the problem is probably very specifically that we have hit that inflection point, which is cultivating a new form of alienation for those who are on that lower cognitive tail, who both lack opportunities and are also made to feel inferior for it.

[-] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Sounds like bootstrap talk to me.

In an ideal world, yes, men and women would be handed a sense of value from society.

[-] pahlimur@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I thought about this for a while and nuance is missing from my argument. I was thinking of a specific few men who were basically human garbage. Like talked down to women and treated them like objects, and also sucked ass at their jobs.

It's fine to think society should give everyone a sense of value. I disagree on the everyone part.

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
34 points (94.7% liked)

science

19388 readers
249 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS