I am a Canadian man but not young. I’m baffled by the trend towards social conservatism by young men. They idolize Andrew Tate and abuse their female teachers. It’s pretty awful. It’s like the whole incel movement took over young boys’ minds.
I blame smartphones, social media and dating apps for the mess we're in right now...esp dating apps. School age kids don't go on dating apps, but they look up to people who do.
Most young of-age people these days hook up through dating apps, but the playing field on dating apps is so heavily tilted towards women that most normal young guys are invisible to most young women.
The apps don't want anyone to succeed and leave the apps. They don't want men to succeed, so they make them invisible. Then, social media is there to feed them lies about why they're not having success on the apps.
The apps also don't want women to succeed, so they feed them a constant dopamine fix of matches to keep them hooked. Social media and dating apps are just videogames for girls, and they cash in on it.
Neither side really has a chance. Guys are peeing into the wind, and girls are wading through shit.
In reality, it's not actually these lonely guys, or these overwhelmed women, but the apps that are the problem. These lonely, radicalized guys are just a symptom of that problem.
Social media and the dating apps need to do better, but there's too much money to be made for it to change. Maybe we just need another Carrington Event to balance the scales back to normal again.
I don't get why you're asking a question, when you have a general answer in the body of your post.
far-right populist parties increasingly draw male support through nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-feminist narratives, while women — especially racialized and university-educated — opt for progressive parties promoting equality and social protection.
So one party is targeting (racialized) minority groups, and promoting feminist-style equality (equality in ways that benefit minorities and women, but not targeting areas where men are worse off), and social protections that are historically skewed in favour of women / minority groups. The government screening for "people who identify as an Equity Employment group" is in line with left leaning policies, where Canada defines "Equity Employment groups" as "any non-male, or non-caucasian, person". Programs/initiatives that provide funding / increased access to women, are arguably "anti" men, especially when experienced on an individual level (being denied a job because you're a guy, even if on aggregate it's for some 'equity' balancing, still feels like you've been discriminated against because of your gender).
Feminist theory doesn't hide its intentions, but people don't bother to think about how men perceive it in 'late stage' feminist cultures (where the imbalance is far less extreme than other areas of the world). Feminism is NOT egalitarian at its core. It's defined (a bit loosely) as the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. That means they are not advocating for equality in areas where women are advantaged, nor in places to gain equity for men -- theories about making groups "actually" equal, would be egalitarian, not feminist. Think of it like a list where you've defined the advantages and disadvantages of both men and women, but then there's a giant social movement to remove the disadvantages from just one side of the list.... it gets lopsided real quick, and unsurprisingly the group that's been ignored gets pissed off and starts pushing back. We constantly hear about the wage gap, or health care deficiencies for women... but we ignore that women live 5 years longer on average (so better 'results' at a high level for health care, and longer time in retirement on CPP/OAS) -- they get ~25% more time in their retirement years, which in addition to old age supports, translates to far higher medical costs for that period as old people eat more resources. Even something like increased supports for seniors, a "general" social support program, disproportionately benefits women because of this underlying inequity that's ignored. We ignore men's poor showing in higher education, which forecasts their earning potential in decades to come -- they're now double digits behind women in terms of getting degrees. The govt funds womens centers with Fent task force money, cause 1 in 5 deaths from fent are women.... the 4 in 5 deaths that are guys are just.... whateva, let em die. We celebrate all woman companies, they get special features in newspapers and tons of public support; companies that are men-only are just waiting to be sued. We allow women only spaces like women's gyms, male exclusive clubs are generally not allowed / torn down by lawsuits (if they grow beyond a facebook group or whatever): I've seen local barbers taken to human rights tribunals, men can't even have 'men' only haircut spots.
Discussion of trans rights, are almost entirely couched in protecting women's rights -- preserving their gender-based privileges in a world where men can "identify" to gain those privileges. Its likely partly why they push hard for a clear definition of what a woman is, so that they can continue to exclude men from those privileges. It's super rare to see cases where someone's in an uproar about a FTM trans person playing a sport (I haven't seen any of these, personally). I'd posit that the lack of defined privilege programs supporting men is one reason FTM doesn't raise as many concerns. That even goes beyond just trans concerns somewhat, in that on job applications, if checking "female" means you pass a quota check, why wouldn't every man identify as woman (or as "gender fluid") for gaining employment? It's not like work's gonna force you to fuck in the employee lounge to prove it. People like Rowling are basically feminists working to preserve women's privileges, which is at odds with a chunk of trans folks who want to gain those privileges by 'opting in'. The fear is basically that men will realise there's no reason not to opt in unless there are very clear barriers put in play, which if not planned for could eliminate a chunk of women's privileges.
Anyhow, to rephrase what you said a bit:
One party is about providing programs and benefits to women and minorities. That party isn't really about providing anything for men; it may benefit them in general with its policies, but those policies are "for everyone", while they specifically target additional beneficial policies to "anyone but men". The other party said they'd remove the programs that target women and minorities with benefits, which indirectly benefits men/the majority race. The party that aligns more to men's general 'needs' got more of the male vote. The party that aligns more to women's general 'needs' got more of the female vote.
Really not all that surprising.
Feelings man weak, oil cowboy strong!
The majority of asshole pickup truck owners are men, and Poilievre ran political ads that looked like they were selling an F150. This isn't a mystery, the conservatives appeal to men who think they are being oppressed by "The Woke," and that is not a message that is going to ring true with a lot of women.
Hey I have a pickup and didn't vote conservative.
If you have a truck, you know your crowd better than anyone. Dudes on trucks are the core conservative demographic.
Me too, plus I don't tailgate!
The alt-right propaganda being firehosed onto social media is particularly targeted at and effective against young men. All our information spaces are under direct and sustained attack by enemies foreign and domestic, and most of them have the goal of influencing or simply destabilizing our democracy. I don't think this is really in question at this point, I think the only open debates are about exactly how much of these attacks can be attributed to what sources, but my belief is that any sort of adversary who's been accused by anyone is probably legitimately involved at some level.
We also don't seem to have any idea what we can do about it or we're going to do about it other than accept that it's happening and apparently continue to let it happen.
I think the critical question here is why are these men vulnerable to it? Then take this knowledge and use that to fight back against bad actors.
My 2 cents on the topic is that many young men feel unimportant and lost and are therefore looking for someone to guide them. Unless society takes it seriously they will continue to follow those that seem to listen and acknowledge their issues even if they are using it to manipulate.
Men are lonely have no friends and want to belong to something is my guess. It's why we have all this stupid stuff.
It's not like we're not trying, but building stuff is harder and costlier than destroying stuff. In this case, the "stuff" is kinship. For this vulnerable audience, it's easy to break into self-centredness and in-group thinking.
A meme in text format:
Right wing extremists targeting men = panik
There are more women in the world = kalm
You mean the guy who said women need housing so they can have babies before their biological clocks run out didn't get many women votes??
Shocking, I know.
It's actually sad that any women voted for him at all 🤷
I'll hazard a guess. It's because male culture and masculine values are fucked. Older men are lonely because they either cannot find friends, or already reached the conclusion it was time to both stop looking and lose the ones they had, for various reasons. Younger men left in a cultural vacuum are reinventing masculinity as a toxic caricature guided by the only affirming male role models they can find outside the home: social media influencers.
Meanwhile, the predominant message from the left, as observed in generalities and absent nuance, is all the ways having a Y chromosome makes you evil. With an apparent choice between self-flagellation and asserting a sense of inherent superiority as both an emotional shield and path to an in-group with shared values, I really can't say I'd choose any better in my younger, immature form.
So here we are, in 2025 where the battle of the sexes is now a political movement and even one that's quite happy to pick your side for you if you dare present ambiguously. We're just a little fashion subtlety away from wearing arm bands, either to declare for the feminists or the anti-woke, or just to dodge social conscription.
the predominant message from the left
Meh people keep saying this, but this comes mostly from the right that likes to amplify the most fringe leftist stuff for rage bait. The predominant message from the left is that men need help. Leftist outlets, influencers, thinkers and communicators routinely try to bridge that gap, but the "fuck your feelings" crowd is only interested in hate-watching the tiktoks of a random punk saying that men are shit.
This is absolutely not true. I'm kinda like a "traitor" who doesn't get viewed as a man, so I've been in group texts with my predominantly women friend-group and they feel comfortable enough to speak freely. They absolutely say stuff like "all men are trash" and mean it, some of them like to brag about stuff like pretending to date a guy in order to get him to help them move before ghosting him. They say shit like "you're one of the good ones" without an ounce of self-awareness.
The message from liberals that I see is "Maybe men need help, but it's their fault that they are like this and they'll need to solve it."
so I’ve been in group texts with my predominantly women friend-group and they feel comfortable enough to speak freely. They absolutely say stuff like “all men are trash” and mean it
I've got bad news for you: conservative (or whatever other self identifying right-wing) woman also say this. But the good news is that your friend-group is not necessarily representative of "the left".
Men need help, but it’s their fault that they are like this and they’ll need to solve it
It's also true, though. One is said nicely, one is said violently. But despite that, some women still spend an inordinate amount of time trying to bridge that gap. Books and presentations and workshops etc are dedicated to rescuing men. You just can't expect this from every individual, that's unrealistic.
Before any more responses show up to say "ah my leftist wife/friend says men are shit", my wife does that too. My wife has a general dislike against men. That's not news to me, and doesn't change anything regarding what I said above.
The reasons women often say stuff like that are numerous tho, ie: men still make more money than women, hold far more CEO/COO positions in companies, have a higher representation in politics, rarely deal with threats of rape, are not trolled incessantly online, rarely face being murdered by someone they know, etc etc etc.
If men don't call out the inequalities and women are vilified for doing so, who's gonna force the much-needed changes we need?
Absolutely. Not only I think women are overly criticized for growing contemptuous of men, that too is dwarfed in damage caused by manhood. Like any violence-related metric, I think men are the biggest source of misandry anyway. Just like men reserve their love and admiration for men, their highest forms of hatred, envy and scorn are often also men. So it's not like men don't say things equivalent to "men are shit", we do it a lot too - we just try to create a group for which that is the exception (and of course, including ourselves). For example, all this bullshit around "soy boy" and "alfa/beta/sigma". This is just men prejudice against men, in roundabout ways tied to performative masculinity.
You can always tell when someone's in a propaganda bubble by "the predominant message is" .
It's not just the right. It's anyone willing to associate systemic and natural (power imbalance) issues with some particular outgroup. Show me someone who doesn't do that and I'll show you someone who's a minority in every demographic they occupy.
Case in point: last I checked, it wasn't the "fuck your feelings" crowd that invented slogans like "eat the rich."
I did not say "it's just the right" so ...
I don't understand the point for which "eat the rich" is the case, nor what you mean with "natural issues". Yes, systemic issues are generally associated with a particular in-group and a particular out-group, that's how they tend to become systemic - oppression has a source and a target. And?
And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute "source demographic" with "individual in that demographic?" Because that's all it takes -- both for bigotry to take root and for it to be perceived by those individuals. In pop culture terms, I have no idea when if ever it stopped. Regarding men specifically, I only witnessed it start half-heartedly/infrequently in the last few years.
Power imbalance is a natural systemic issue in so far as it sometimes having natural sources/root causes, but more importantly it's inherent propensity toward positive feedback loops.
"Eat the rich" is an example of messaging that has completely lost the plot of systemic issues while highlighting the outgroup and not coming only from fringe extremists. Sure, it means "redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all" but it sure doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't have the power and popularity that comes from appealing to the baser, target-hungry instincts of all humans.
Sure, it means “redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all” but it sure doesn’t say that.
So what's the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?
Why is "eat the reach" messaging that "lost the plot" if the slogan does exactly what it's supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?
And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute “source demographic” with “individual in that demographic?”
I don't know, you tell me. I don't see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding "eat the rich" plaques. I still don't quite get what's this phrase being used as an example for given it's so inconsequential.
Maybe sleep on it and try coming back with fresh eyes. I'm getting exhausted just looking at all the threads to pluck in this comment. And I sincerely mean no disrespect nor judgement, but seeing this conversation through is starting to look like more work than I'm personally willing to invest while I'm supposed to be on vacation.
lol fair enough, and it's perhaps a not very useful point to dwell anyway, it seems it was just an example
Also, I don't judge a group by its worst members and least of all its influencers. But pay attention to the actual direct, interpersonal behavior of the influenced majority and then decide whether quietly, non-verbally ostracizing (excluding, avoiding, presuming guilt of) men is a fringe position.
Given the safety/hazard factor, I can't even bring myself to cast blame. It only takes 1% of men victimizing women for 50% of women to eventually get victimized. But that is where fringe behavior is condemning an entire demographic. Every sufficiently large group has its Cro-Magnon influencers, which no reasonable person considers representative of that group.
I appreciate the considerable amount of left-leaning voices that avoid condemning men just for being, and even sometimes recognize the challenges they face and the limits of their agency as individuals. But the majority these voices are not, and I doubt even their audiences comprise the majority of people who align themselves anywhere left of center.
The further left I go, the more hostility I face from increasingly narrow purity tests. When performed in person, its often with a haughty air/attitude of expecting me to fail. (In other words, I'm talking about people who are clearly not afraid of me.) If that isn't stereotyping and prejudice, I don't know what is. And so I align with a set of values and political views populated by people I find no less miserable to be around than the bigots on the right. You can file that under "various reasons" to choose self-isolation.
And I'm certainly not the only person from the left pointing out that the left has a welcoming problem, either.
I see. You are resentful for having your flaws exposed by people who do not concern themselves with making this comfortable for you. That, I can agree, is a common experience for men. It's not the same thing as "the left says that you're evil because you have a Y chromosome", though.
The irony is that this isn't specific to men either. The same journey applies to everyone. Hope you find a group that can help you grow in a safer space, though such things are not a given, unfortunately.
You weren't interested in generalities and I don't believe there's anything approaching hard data on this, so I personalized my point. I had my awakening, humbling, and re-habilitation of self-identity before any of this came up (for me), and it only did because I started noticing how increasingly harder it was for other men to to navigate that same path. I'm one of the lucky ones because of the support system I had before I "deserved" one.
Even then, I'd be perfectly happy sticking to my own tiny community, if not for my nation's willingness to join the broader movement nurturing backlash against growing hardship into grievance politics and the same steady slide right as every other major nation.
I miss having my head in the sand.
The only thing I could be credibly accused of resenting is the realization that I have to take more responsibility for the state of society around me, and start doing the work on behalf of people beyond my inner circle. For a long time, I said nothing in defense of men because it was very much not expedient to invite the associated judgements. Besides, there isn't exactly a shortage of (I used to think) higher priority groups to defend. Men still aren't the highest by a mile, but they're doing a good job of escalating it.
But I'll dock no points for jumping to the simple, stereotypical conclusion. It is, after all, a very popular psychoanalysis. ;)
I mean, I have no shame in acknowledging that I too had and may still have from time to time some resentment. Maybe I'm projecting? But I do see in your writing the mindspace I recognize personally. It's part of being in a privileged position while also suffering the negative consequences of said privilege. It really is uncomfortable to be told that I'm the problem when, from my point of view, I'm trying to get rid of the problem.
But both are true, so I do think it's easier to get through this by letting go of this peeve. Yeah sure a bunch of women will say they'd rather come across a bear when hiking, some will wear t-shirts saying that all men are garbage, some misandrists will yell that all cis males need to have their dicks chopped off. But if that's what the majority of your experience of "the left" is, there's something wrong with the composition of your social life. "The left" is more than that, and in that regard it's just a fine place to be, even if it's one that will not let me forget that I still have lots of ingrained sexism - I really do, I would not pass infinitely narrow "purity tests" as you say. Same for racism, transphobia, ageism, ableism etc (which is why I said this experience is universal).
The trouble with
letting go of this peeve
is that
[men are] doing a good job of escalating it.
In political terms, I'm affected in so far as disaffected men are storming the halls of power and pursuing agendas that will make everything worse for all of us. In interpersonal terms, "I got mine." And in subsequent identity terms, saying and doing nothing feels a bit like pulling up the ladder behind me.
Ok I'm signing off now. Cheers.
saying and doing nothing feels a bit like pulling up the ladder behind me
I think I understand where you're coming from, but if you can let go of having the guard up against the very real barrage of criticism you have to face as you dive deeper into deconstructing masculinity, you can still try to provide the safe space you wish you had on your journey. It's not a matter of silencing yourself, it's more like: understanding where that friction is coming from, then learning how to plow through and still develop oneself with the constructive feedback, then being there for others you recognize could use a gentler nudge towards a better path.
Rest nicely and be safe out there.
It kinda feels sexist to casually put the "why" in the headline like the answer is even remotely a mystery.
The answer is people are scared of violence and violent threats and will tend to prefer people who don't behave that way.
"I can't take off any more glasses!" 🤣
Nailed it. 🤣🤣
Women are more liberal usually.
Because women are smarter than us men on matters of importance.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca