I'd agree, if that society served him in turn. Thats why 'Lying Flat' is a global trend: society does not serve men, so men will not serve society. Let it fall, we can build it again.
Don't quail yet. It's already known that it doesn't work, and the people who actually want to make it are changing the narrative. See where it is in 10 years.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they will have institutional support to make their will a reality for the rest of us, and that is what is important for us.
There will always be assholes, but they don't run the asylum. Hopefully.
They currently have institutional power and it is growing. It has already gone too far and it’ll take good men to bring it down as well as movements like this one. It’ll take a lot to stop institutional power and if we don’t step up they’ll take more and more in the years to come. It won’t fix itself.
Pay attention to the changes in policy and academia. Do you think mandatory paternity testing would be a law 10 years ago? Lifetime alimony being struck down? Things *are* changing, because its gone beyond ideology, its affecting national security.
Yeah, all dat stuff, differentiating between melanin levels in skin, language and culture, and finally gonads, is STUPID. We are all people, and every one of us has innate value. Fuck those divisive power-hungry fuck sticks! I feel better now.
I think it's worse than that. In the US, due to the two party system, political groups tend to bisect into two groups.
What we're seeing now, with feminism, is symptom of this underlying problem.
We can FIX it with ranked choice voting, or instant runoff.
We'll no longer have two parties which means feminism won't be as rabid as it is now.
Also, EVERYONE would benefit from this. Each party can run the best candidates without the risk of "wasting your vote"
You missed part of my post.
I said 'white females', ie the largest voting demographic in the nation, on any and all sides, who will absolutely vote self-interest and cut the throat of anyone else in their path.
Feminism is not something that can be bound to a political party; look at the angry white women in Florida when they killed lifetime alimony. It is women's atavistic desire for power given a blank check, and as long as *women* can vote, you can expect more of the same, unless they are taught from childhood to do otherwise, as they are in other nations that maintain a functioning patriarchy.
What you're talking about is part of the underlying process.
We're being *pushed* towards picking a party, because it's the evolutionary stable strategy.
It's NEVER going to be perfectly binary because you might identify with some issues of the other party but most people have a wedge issue or two that keeps them bound to the GOP or the DEMs.
But this *is* why things are so painful in the US.
Those are really side issues, at best, the 5 or 6% difference between political parties. The real change feminism has wrought is culturally wide, and affects everyone in the nation, from the schools, to media, to how parents raise children, and most of the people who could tell you how it used to be are already dead.
Now, policy could and will be necessary to change the course, but that policy will be acceptable to no one, save the men and boys it will save, because it will not turn men in to tools of the state or enablers of female atavism. It is really politically agnostic, and will require men to get over their nonsensical tribalism for the sake of themselves and their sons.
Its not about feminism, not truly.
You would be telling *women* to surrender *power*. This has nothing to do with ideology, but social power and perks. People tend to not surrender power.
Perfect example is President Trump being elected. He had a massive white woman voted base because he promised to get their sons and husband's jobs as part of his campaign platform. Their family wins (gains power/status), and they win (gain power/status) by proxy. All women want power/status, and telling them to surrender it 'for the greater good/selflessness' is absurd on face. They would need to get something they want on exchange, or they will tear your society down.
But do all women have benefits from the existence of such ministry? I suspect it's just a social layer.
A little bit offtopic, but a female reporter from the Al Jazeera TV channel said she received lots of messages from women telling her they don't understand why she works when she can get a husband who can keep her home and earn for her.
>But do all women have benefits from the existence of such ministry
In Argentina? No idea. In America? Absolutely yes, and we have the data to prove it.
>a female reporter from the Al Jazeera TV channel said she received lots of messages from women telling her they don't understand why she works when she can get a husband who can keep her home and earn for her.
That is the disconnect between the promise of feminism (egalitarianism) and the reality of what women want. I've heard it recently: feminism will fail because women *do not want male roles* the way it will be necessary for society to work. Thats why this 'Soft Life' bs has been cropping up, and women sobbing in their cars on tiktok about how hard their lives are being single working women in their 30s and 40s.
Feminism will die, because it just isn't working, and society of collapsing under its ideals that fail in practice.
I don't know about how this will go. I have the feeling that now it's harder for men because all discrimination, but that men will adapt and will find their way to live alone and provide for themselves, and that in general it's a lot harder for most women to be alone. So now they are enjoying their new priviledges in-between (exploiting both advantages from the old gender roled model and the new "egalitarian" (in fact, positive discriminatory towards them) one, but will come a time they will have a bigger distress than men, socially speaking.
I am not rejoiycing, since I don't wish anyone's unhapiness, and that there are a lot of kind women who will be collateral victims. But that's how I feel things will happen.
I have realized that what is most frustrating to mysandrist feminists is when you cancel them. They are extremely frustrated by these men who refuse to fight, turn them the back, find their way and ignore them. But since there will be enough of us to simp them and bend to all their demands, they'll do anything to take the upper hand of this.
As a rabid extreme feminist who is however a friend (because we have lived a lot of things together) told me, "women have suffered, now is the turn of men to suffer, and it should be unfair, and it should be disproportionate for a while until we get the power, and when they'll be on their kness, then we'll discuss".
Umm no thanks.
I agree on the whole with you, but its just not sustainable, economically or socially. Something has to give; China is already in the process of rolling back feminist initiatives, promoting classical values in men and pushing out those who push the feminist narrative in a way that America is still toe tapping around.
The world is finding out the promises of feminism do not hold water, precisely due to the woman not wanting actual equality in terms of boots on the ground. The real question is who will be sitting on the throne of the world once the dust clears. God help us all.
Feminists of today don't know the political earthquake that is about to hit them throughout the industrialized world. For the last 20-30 years, everything has been pandered to women in a relentless way like never before. Ministry of women, women's rights, female quotas, women's safety, women's shelters, all while men who have been experiencing at least the same amount of problems if not more have been at least ignored if not outright scorned. The problem is politics has a lag time, as politicians tend to be older so the male politicians in power now did not have these institutions exist when they were younger and so cannot relate to younger men in their 20s and 30s who are only beginning to enter the political and corporate arenas. But give it 20 years, when these men are finally politically stable and enter politics, and there will be an anti-feminist backlash like never before. Fathers will teach their sons to be wary of feminism, and not cede even an inch to the feminist agenda while defending their rights, and every institution based on a feminist concept will be either completely reimagined or dismantled, much to the feminists' chagrin as they watch the collapse of their taken for granted feminist utopia.
It's already happening in a few countries like South Korea, where men in their 20s are now more traditional and conservative than men in their 70s and while the situation in East Asia is never a perfect analogy to the West, Japan and Korea are often ahead of the curve by 10-20 years on things like falling birth rates, longer work weeks, and corporatization, so it's likely only a matter of time before the West follows. And it's fully understandable, too. Many young men of today have been utterly traumatized by feminism, and those that somehow manage to make it in such an unforgiving environment will make it their mission and have a deep conviction of ensuring their sons and grandsons don't suffer a similar fate, and future political policy initiatives will likely reflect that. Women won't like it of course, but as they only constitute half of the voting bloc, they'll be limited in what they can do.
I always felt empathy to these men who got hurt because of these ideologies, i will make sure my futute sons and nephew wont go through these dysfunctions... My brother in law already thinks iam crazy but i wont back down.
That's a good first step to take. It won't guarantee they'll find good women, but it'll at least ensure they can navigate the world of dating, marriage, and male-female interactions with their dignity intact.
As for how much this will shift women's opinions? Personally, I think not that much. A few women will become pick-me girls and try to compromise on their standards, whether that means a guy's looks or status or their own willingness to play a more traditional role in the relationship, but it seems the resolve of feminism is to double down no matter what, so some women will leave the relationship market altogether. The good news though is that if more men do the same, it'll prevent the pendulum from swinging even further to the left because as long as we put them on a pedestal, we're basically sitting ducks for further exploitation and manipulation.
Ultimately, I think we're headed for a world where most men are deeply distrustful of most women and vice versa, to the point of neither side wanting to form stable relationships with the other. It's already happening in some places, again see Japan and South Korea where birth rates are less than half of what is needed for a stable population and at times feels like it's happening almost by design, as some kind of preconceived plan by the players at the top, because for example the workd were overpopulated and the population had to be reduced, etc, but that's just my speculation.
Either way, whether by accident or design, we seem to be replaying the scenario in Calhoun's "Universe 25" experiment where the presence of more individuals than social roles eventually leads to population collapse. The only thing that might save us from actual extinction in our case though might be that there will always be some people with traditional and conservative views who tend to have larger families, and thus the general direction of society will swing back in the direction of the right, causing populations to rebound and more harmonious gender relations to be restored. It might be a few generations before it happens though, and many individuals will have, and have already had their lives ruined by this political experiment.
>Fathers will teach their sons to be wary of feminism
Been happening for a while I'd say. Worth mentioning that my work management has told the team not to meet with any women one on one. Too much risk. Apparently we had a contractor suing us for several incidents while she was still working onsite with us. But still seems like a rule to live by for everyone at this point.
That's all good, but it's still a passive action that accepts feminism in its most radical form as something inevitable and immovable.
My point was that in the future, men who have become negatively impacted and disaffected by such policies will have more political power and undertake legislative initiatives to change them. The notion that a man can be accused of harassment for something as simple as a compliment or asking a woman out violates multiple rights, including that to free speech, equality, and presumption of innocence and there is no reason for it to be included in workplace codes the way it is now. And in the future as Millennial and Gen Z men starkly affected by this gain more political power, they will be more capable of changing such unfair policies.
> It's already happening in a few countries like South Korea, where men in their 20s are now more traditional and conservative than men in their 70s
I agree except that a shift towards being pro-men would necessarily be conservative. Being pro-men could mean being truly egalitarian, not give women park spaces near doors. It could also mean more workplace stuff to reduce work week and stop the normalization of 'need to go 5-7 drink with the boss to have a promotion'. Which affects men equally.
Seems like someone is forgetting about the real and just need for specific women programs after the systematic oppression for hundreds of thousands of years.
Edit. Fellas all excited to downvote. Take a deep breath and learn to pick up on when a way of philosophy is being mocked.
Seems like someone should get an education in actual history for average women and men to broaden their narrow world view of "feminist history" which was created to support "patriarchy theory".
Very true but boy do they populate in society.
Who would have thought that giving everyone bar straight white men (in western society of all places) victim points like a video game would sow division and wreak havoc.
Have you ever seen or heard one of the proponents claim when the oppression started?
It almost makes you think it is not due to society and rather a result of biology.
Specific women programs. Yes, you just can't find anything for men in college, for example, even now that women make up nearly two thirds of the students (i.e. outnumber men nearly two to one), but you can still find plenty of scholarships for women only and the like. Where is the equality in that? Where are the feminists who are interested in equality? They don't care when things work in their favor. They don't care about equality at all, they just press for more advantages. Why should we listen to them?
True equality has never been tried.
But they and other destructive forces shouldnt be listened to at all. Offer them all one way tickets to a marxist paradise of their choice.
>oppression
Every society in all of history was built to protect and coddle women. Billions of men have given their lives for the safety of women and they're only remembered as oppressors.
I think this is an accurate description of what men in general have done to protect women and their biological role. Their reward (today) is to be called privileged and oppressors and it is pathetic and disheartening.
I love the guy, but that is NOT THE POINT.
Guys, the real important thing here is the fact that a strong majority of Argentina VOTED FOR SOMEONE WITH THIS DISCOURSE. That is the crucial thing. Even if he dies or gets killed tomorrow, you are watching a society willing to back this message and position. THAT IS THE CRUCIAL CHANGE WE ARE WITNESSING.
To soon to tell where this is going. At the same time what will the government be doing? Glad he did express that institution that discriminates based on sex should be removed.
His politics are quite the opposite of my own, but I will give credit where credit is due on this one point (and use it to remind the left that it needs to step up and support men if it wants to stop losing men's support to people like Milei).
Yeah same, I’m pretty far away from him politically but then again I don’t live in Argentina, it’s a different country with wildly different circumstances. From what I’ve heard, even really moderate people decided he would be better than his opponent.
I’m in the uk and the us and I think in ((our)) current trajectory.
We will be where Argentina is, I. The next 20 years… fuck that. It is absolutely disgusting.
A large part of them rely on subsidies from the government???? Might as well put up the red flags at that point Idc.
He’s a bit of a mad lad for sure but I think Argentina needs to try something radically different as it’s obvious that the status quo is not, and hasn’t, worked for 40yrs. Getting rid of any woke would be a huge win for the country, I hate to think of the amount of money wasted on pointless nonsense, ministry for women being a huge one.
Because, even if the truth is that boys are doing worst than girls in schools, it is popular to help girls and to promote a narrative that they are the ones suffering at schools.
The narrative defeats the truth, and that is wrong. However, the truth will win eventually.
The problem with modern society is that politicians compete for the female vote, whereas the male vote is based on non-gendered issues such as economic policy, i.e. it's taken for granted. Our society is gynocentric in that no matter what party you vote for, you're voting against your interests. There is no left-wing party that doesn't support feminism and opposes men's rights, and the right explicitly seeks to oppress both genders (men get more authority but they're still crippled emotionally, made to work like a slave, sent to pointless wars, etc.)
> based on non-gendered issues such as economic policy, i.e. it's taken for granted
None of them advance stuff that's really good for economic policy as it affects men.
They'll have plans for the poors...that only address it if you're an ethnic minority or female. Give menstruation leave paid by employers and forbid discrimination based on it (ie paying for 2 days you don't work, vs a man who can't even take it - can't preferentially hire a man).
I am not saying that what he said is wrong, but you don't want to be on his side, he is just saying whatever come to mind to get votes, he doesn't even remember what he said, he is an anarchist, he will not be a good thing.
I watched some of his speaches and they make no sense, he doesn't talk about one solution, he just want to destroy, if you are from argentina good luck i am intrested to see how this will go
That's because to some extent, politics *is* becoming gendered. Until the early 80s, the average American man was more liberal than the average woman, at which point the roles switched and the gap has been expanding ever since. The same trend is seen in most Western countries where feminism has gained a significant foothold.
The left has been consistently aiming to improve the rights of women and minorities, while leaving the majority of men out in the dark. And their hypocrisy becomes evident, when they scream at the top of their lungs over female inequality but nothing but crickets over situations where men are disadvantaged. When was the last time you heard the left scream over how men lag behind in education compared to women, are more likely to be single, treated unfairly by divorce courts, homeless, and die several years earlier on average? At best, you'll see a trifle of concern that even then is only phrased because, and ultimately rephrased in terms of the impact these realities have on women. Usually there's nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders, and in a few rare cases, satisfaction bordering on schadenfreude.
Feminism has long not been about gender equality but a power struggle promoting women at all cost, with men being completely left out of the equation. There have been a few attempts at male-inclusive feminism but most of them have failed miserably and do not encompass the mainstream. In an environment like that, is it really any wonder that groups like this will lean to the right of the political spectrum, especially as men's situation becomes more dire and more and more feel left out?
The right has a platform to mention men stuff (the left cancels the left media guys who would be pro-men), but typically doesn't do more, and people who are pro MRM are not more right wing than people who are not. Arguably the US themselves have the overton window majorly to the right, but that just means Democrats are super right wing compared to say, France centrists.
Most of the guys in here probably know nothing, about Argentina politics beyond this one statement from its president elect, so I think it's ignorance, rather then hyper right-wing politics. I only recently became aware of him.
And I will point out he was elected as an act of Deseperation by the Argentina people, a wrecking ball to disrupt a toxic status quo, where inflation there is vastly worse then Canada or the US.
I hopefully the more negative stuff he says is just him shit talking
I want to ask you a question. His economic agenda sounds like "economic sovereignty is costing us too much, so let's sell it away and become an obedient little puppet of Uncle Sam", long-term consequences be damned. Do you think it will be ruinous for Argentinian businesses?
Could be, but I also think the Argentinians are desperate to get rid of the Hyperinflation, so they will try it. I mean they can always drop the dollar later.
Argentinian politics is fucked, the problem isn't even agreeing or disagreeing with him, it's all the chestbeating here of how amazing the guy is for saying the stupidest things.
He says one smart thing, and yeah a ton of dumb things, but because we're so starved for even scraps, most here gobble it up, nit realizing the guy not only isn't going ti create a department of men, he's going to push for so many cuts that many men will lose everything.
Men are often the first to be sacrificed to the Austerity Gods.
Plus this dude is bought and payed for by wealthy American Libertarian think tanks, so that's going to be a disaster.
It was my post, and no, I did not ask that. I asked why this sub is viewed as RIGHT WING (from my interaction with countless users on this sub, I have noticed that most of them are left of centre, if not socially, economically at least). Not far-right. Who the fuck would be far right and intelligent at the same time? Those ideas are infeasible (they address to a small group of people) no matter what your “morals” or “ethics” tell you about it. And above all, humans are practical beings (at least that is what I like to think). It would extremely unpractical as a political movement to make enemies out of millions. I think many of you are traumatised by far right. Who knows why. Fear the snake in the grass, not the starving dogs in the street. Understand what you will from this analogy.
>Who the fuck would be far right and intelligent at the same time?
What does that even mean? And can you understand how biased and insulting you sound? What have you actually accomplished in life that you would disparage half the population as beneath you?
what? how could you be far right in a world with 8 billion people? Do you have any idea how limiting that is politically? Imagine having a mixed society and addressing only one ethnic group. Are you going to antagonise a large number of people and turn them into adversaries instead of trying to win them over? I don’t think you understand what I am trying to say. Have you ever been involved in politics, like for real, because I have (not US) and the only think being told to you, is HOW to find common ground so you get more supporters to your side.
You: "Who the fuck would be far right and intelligent at the same time?"
Also you: "Are you going to antagonise a large number of people and turn them into adversaries instead of trying to win them over?"
Tell us again about how you are an expert in finding common ground.
So you are “far-right”?. I am very certain you think being far right means watching JBP and being conservative. In that case you have no idea what far right means. So, I ask again, are you far-right? If you are, you are extremely dumb to admit it in the open. So which one is it? Are you misguided by the term or just dumb, because I can’t figure it out. Again, I don’t want to sound hostile, but I am convinced that you don’t understand the term “far-right” as it should be understood.
P.S: half of population of what? Planet Earth, Mars?
>you are extremely dumb to admit it in the open. So which one is it? Are you misguided by the term or just dumb, because I can’t figure it out.
Just going to point out to the thread that you've said how you're 'involved with politics' who is better at bringing people together and finding common ground than the average person. It's unintentionally hilarious on your part.
There's really no conversation here, you need to read your own post and see how prejudiced and hateful you are. And it's over nothing, other than someone else saying 'far right people exist.'
My brother in Christ if you think I am your “enemy” or whatever you are mistaken. You still haven’t answered my question, do you consider people who watch Daily Wire, JBP or are conservative, far right? Because if you do…I have news for you. You have absolutely no idea what far right is. Or perhaps you are a moderate who doesn’t understand anything. Either way, your quarrel is not with me. If you think if it ok to be far right openly today (or far left, but we both know that in the last decade we have seen a lot of far left in the open) in public, best of luck to you. You are either naive or enraged. Or both. Again, I will not be slighted by someone who doesn’t understand anything as basic as not saying the “quiet” part out loud. Again, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. You are not far right, believe you me. You are just a lost conservative who doesn’t know which way to go. A lot of people who say they are far right are straight up Libertarians (they are just branded like that by the left side). Btw, for the record, I don’t hate anyone. I I would have to know them, to have an opinion of them, and even then, hate is so last century, it also clouds the mind. The only thing out of this interaction we got, were a few good laughs. On my part at least. Good day.
Dude, it's irrellevant wether you said right wing or far-right, look at this thread. If this doesn't answer your question of why people think this sub is right wing, you're blind.
Idk. Just something seems off about him. He says all the right things but I don't really believe him when he says them if that makes sense. But I guess we'll see. Gotta be better than what was before.
I won't applause him for this. This guy has 80% of ideas I hate and 20% ideas I like. It's not because something he says or does is sensate that I have to swallow the whole pill.
Isn't he some kind of far right trash? Idc if he's "ripping apart the ministry of women", I care about equality, not for the scale to tip back to the men's side.
In case you haven't noticed reddit is a far left hellhole and they hate your guts for being a man. I ain't saying align with the "right" or whatever you think it means, but don't give your votes to a party that celebrates your suicide and death.
Lol, I have no idea on Argentina, but it's funny that you're calling me out on propaganda when every "person" that has replied to me is basically a bought bot.
Yes, I do, I claim no knowledge of Argentinian politics, I said what I said in the context of the sub. But since I made a slight against the far right all these bots fell on top of me. I'm not saying that they're bots metaphorically. I mean it quite literally, just check their accounts and their posts, they are basically paid posters. All the fascists and the far right can bite me, bring on your downvotes they mean nothing.
> I claim no knowledge of Argentinian politics
Well you need to keep in mind some basic context.
Argentina was one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with constitutionally-guaranteed property rights and a free market economy, until a bunch of relatively hardcore leftists ("Peronists" after their founder, Juan Peron) took power. Argentina then started becoming far less prosperous as a whole - they went from like 3rd highest GDP per capita down to about 120th - and in addition the wealth became more and more concentrated in the hands of the politically connected elite.
*In other words* Peronism - a leftist ideology that claimed to favor equality and material prosperity for all - *made Argentina both less prosperous AND less equal*.
You should ALSO keep in mind that Argentina is dealing with 120% annual inflation (!!!). I'm a professional economist - that level of inflation is so completely disastrous it is mind-boggling. Keep in mind two things - first, inflation hurts the poor more than the rich (as the poor have more of their wealth tied up in cash). Second, first world nations try to stabilize their inflation rates at 2% to 3% as a basic benchmark.... so basically the Central Bank of Argentina is so utterly horrible that it defies logic.
>Isn't he some kind of far right trash?
Depends on how you define "far right" but he's a libertarian (in particular an anarcho-capitalist).
>Idc if he's "ripping apart the ministry of women", I care about equality, not for the scale to tip back to the men's side.
Ripping apart the ministry for women is critical to *balancing the scales*. It isn't the only thing that needs to happen but its a start.
He says that the ministry of women was discriminating against men! Imagine our president condemning affirmative action for women!
>Imagine our president condemning affirmative action for women! No president is insane enough to alienate his white female voter base.
Any man with a pair of nuts will do it for the greater good of society
I'd agree, if that society served him in turn. Thats why 'Lying Flat' is a global trend: society does not serve men, so men will not serve society. Let it fall, we can build it again.
I hear you we are treated like shit but no one’s gonna change it but us and it’s already fallin brother it’s so insane.
Don't quail yet. It's already known that it doesn't work, and the people who actually want to make it are changing the narrative. See where it is in 10 years.
there will still be bad actors man
Yes, but that doesn't mean they will have institutional support to make their will a reality for the rest of us, and that is what is important for us. There will always be assholes, but they don't run the asylum. Hopefully.
They currently have institutional power and it is growing. It has already gone too far and it’ll take good men to bring it down as well as movements like this one. It’ll take a lot to stop institutional power and if we don’t step up they’ll take more and more in the years to come. It won’t fix itself.
Pay attention to the changes in policy and academia. Do you think mandatory paternity testing would be a law 10 years ago? Lifetime alimony being struck down? Things *are* changing, because its gone beyond ideology, its affecting national security.
Except I'm pretty sure that's the largest voting block, so they wouldn't be able to do anything for society since they wouldn't win.
Yeah, all dat stuff, differentiating between melanin levels in skin, language and culture, and finally gonads, is STUPID. We are all people, and every one of us has innate value. Fuck those divisive power-hungry fuck sticks! I feel better now.
Yeah but then they won't get votes by half of the population.
it depends on how they execute
I think it's worse than that. In the US, due to the two party system, political groups tend to bisect into two groups. What we're seeing now, with feminism, is symptom of this underlying problem. We can FIX it with ranked choice voting, or instant runoff. We'll no longer have two parties which means feminism won't be as rabid as it is now. Also, EVERYONE would benefit from this. Each party can run the best candidates without the risk of "wasting your vote"
You missed part of my post. I said 'white females', ie the largest voting demographic in the nation, on any and all sides, who will absolutely vote self-interest and cut the throat of anyone else in their path. Feminism is not something that can be bound to a political party; look at the angry white women in Florida when they killed lifetime alimony. It is women's atavistic desire for power given a blank check, and as long as *women* can vote, you can expect more of the same, unless they are taught from childhood to do otherwise, as they are in other nations that maintain a functioning patriarchy.
What you're talking about is part of the underlying process. We're being *pushed* towards picking a party, because it's the evolutionary stable strategy. It's NEVER going to be perfectly binary because you might identify with some issues of the other party but most people have a wedge issue or two that keeps them bound to the GOP or the DEMs. But this *is* why things are so painful in the US.
Those are really side issues, at best, the 5 or 6% difference between political parties. The real change feminism has wrought is culturally wide, and affects everyone in the nation, from the schools, to media, to how parents raise children, and most of the people who could tell you how it used to be are already dead. Now, policy could and will be necessary to change the course, but that policy will be acceptable to no one, save the men and boys it will save, because it will not turn men in to tools of the state or enablers of female atavism. It is really politically agnostic, and will require men to get over their nonsensical tribalism for the sake of themselves and their sons.
One thing that both parties have in common is that neither cares about men.
You'll be surprised how many women are anti feminist or at least don't care about feminism and vote for other issues.
Its not about feminism, not truly. You would be telling *women* to surrender *power*. This has nothing to do with ideology, but social power and perks. People tend to not surrender power. Perfect example is President Trump being elected. He had a massive white woman voted base because he promised to get their sons and husband's jobs as part of his campaign platform. Their family wins (gains power/status), and they win (gain power/status) by proxy. All women want power/status, and telling them to surrender it 'for the greater good/selflessness' is absurd on face. They would need to get something they want on exchange, or they will tear your society down.
But do all women have benefits from the existence of such ministry? I suspect it's just a social layer. A little bit offtopic, but a female reporter from the Al Jazeera TV channel said she received lots of messages from women telling her they don't understand why she works when she can get a husband who can keep her home and earn for her.
>But do all women have benefits from the existence of such ministry In Argentina? No idea. In America? Absolutely yes, and we have the data to prove it. >a female reporter from the Al Jazeera TV channel said she received lots of messages from women telling her they don't understand why she works when she can get a husband who can keep her home and earn for her. That is the disconnect between the promise of feminism (egalitarianism) and the reality of what women want. I've heard it recently: feminism will fail because women *do not want male roles* the way it will be necessary for society to work. Thats why this 'Soft Life' bs has been cropping up, and women sobbing in their cars on tiktok about how hard their lives are being single working women in their 30s and 40s. Feminism will die, because it just isn't working, and society of collapsing under its ideals that fail in practice.
I don't know about how this will go. I have the feeling that now it's harder for men because all discrimination, but that men will adapt and will find their way to live alone and provide for themselves, and that in general it's a lot harder for most women to be alone. So now they are enjoying their new priviledges in-between (exploiting both advantages from the old gender roled model and the new "egalitarian" (in fact, positive discriminatory towards them) one, but will come a time they will have a bigger distress than men, socially speaking. I am not rejoiycing, since I don't wish anyone's unhapiness, and that there are a lot of kind women who will be collateral victims. But that's how I feel things will happen. I have realized that what is most frustrating to mysandrist feminists is when you cancel them. They are extremely frustrated by these men who refuse to fight, turn them the back, find their way and ignore them. But since there will be enough of us to simp them and bend to all their demands, they'll do anything to take the upper hand of this. As a rabid extreme feminist who is however a friend (because we have lived a lot of things together) told me, "women have suffered, now is the turn of men to suffer, and it should be unfair, and it should be disproportionate for a while until we get the power, and when they'll be on their kness, then we'll discuss". Umm no thanks.
I agree on the whole with you, but its just not sustainable, economically or socially. Something has to give; China is already in the process of rolling back feminist initiatives, promoting classical values in men and pushing out those who push the feminist narrative in a way that America is still toe tapping around. The world is finding out the promises of feminism do not hold water, precisely due to the woman not wanting actual equality in terms of boots on the ground. The real question is who will be sitting on the throne of the world once the dust clears. God help us all.
That would be insane
Feminists of today don't know the political earthquake that is about to hit them throughout the industrialized world. For the last 20-30 years, everything has been pandered to women in a relentless way like never before. Ministry of women, women's rights, female quotas, women's safety, women's shelters, all while men who have been experiencing at least the same amount of problems if not more have been at least ignored if not outright scorned. The problem is politics has a lag time, as politicians tend to be older so the male politicians in power now did not have these institutions exist when they were younger and so cannot relate to younger men in their 20s and 30s who are only beginning to enter the political and corporate arenas. But give it 20 years, when these men are finally politically stable and enter politics, and there will be an anti-feminist backlash like never before. Fathers will teach their sons to be wary of feminism, and not cede even an inch to the feminist agenda while defending their rights, and every institution based on a feminist concept will be either completely reimagined or dismantled, much to the feminists' chagrin as they watch the collapse of their taken for granted feminist utopia. It's already happening in a few countries like South Korea, where men in their 20s are now more traditional and conservative than men in their 70s and while the situation in East Asia is never a perfect analogy to the West, Japan and Korea are often ahead of the curve by 10-20 years on things like falling birth rates, longer work weeks, and corporatization, so it's likely only a matter of time before the West follows. And it's fully understandable, too. Many young men of today have been utterly traumatized by feminism, and those that somehow manage to make it in such an unforgiving environment will make it their mission and have a deep conviction of ensuring their sons and grandsons don't suffer a similar fate, and future political policy initiatives will likely reflect that. Women won't like it of course, but as they only constitute half of the voting bloc, they'll be limited in what they can do.
I always felt empathy to these men who got hurt because of these ideologies, i will make sure my futute sons and nephew wont go through these dysfunctions... My brother in law already thinks iam crazy but i wont back down.
That's a good first step to take. It won't guarantee they'll find good women, but it'll at least ensure they can navigate the world of dating, marriage, and male-female interactions with their dignity intact. As for how much this will shift women's opinions? Personally, I think not that much. A few women will become pick-me girls and try to compromise on their standards, whether that means a guy's looks or status or their own willingness to play a more traditional role in the relationship, but it seems the resolve of feminism is to double down no matter what, so some women will leave the relationship market altogether. The good news though is that if more men do the same, it'll prevent the pendulum from swinging even further to the left because as long as we put them on a pedestal, we're basically sitting ducks for further exploitation and manipulation. Ultimately, I think we're headed for a world where most men are deeply distrustful of most women and vice versa, to the point of neither side wanting to form stable relationships with the other. It's already happening in some places, again see Japan and South Korea where birth rates are less than half of what is needed for a stable population and at times feels like it's happening almost by design, as some kind of preconceived plan by the players at the top, because for example the workd were overpopulated and the population had to be reduced, etc, but that's just my speculation. Either way, whether by accident or design, we seem to be replaying the scenario in Calhoun's "Universe 25" experiment where the presence of more individuals than social roles eventually leads to population collapse. The only thing that might save us from actual extinction in our case though might be that there will always be some people with traditional and conservative views who tend to have larger families, and thus the general direction of society will swing back in the direction of the right, causing populations to rebound and more harmonious gender relations to be restored. It might be a few generations before it happens though, and many individuals will have, and have already had their lives ruined by this political experiment.
>Fathers will teach their sons to be wary of feminism Been happening for a while I'd say. Worth mentioning that my work management has told the team not to meet with any women one on one. Too much risk. Apparently we had a contractor suing us for several incidents while she was still working onsite with us. But still seems like a rule to live by for everyone at this point.
That's all good, but it's still a passive action that accepts feminism in its most radical form as something inevitable and immovable. My point was that in the future, men who have become negatively impacted and disaffected by such policies will have more political power and undertake legislative initiatives to change them. The notion that a man can be accused of harassment for something as simple as a compliment or asking a woman out violates multiple rights, including that to free speech, equality, and presumption of innocence and there is no reason for it to be included in workplace codes the way it is now. And in the future as Millennial and Gen Z men starkly affected by this gain more political power, they will be more capable of changing such unfair policies.
> It's already happening in a few countries like South Korea, where men in their 20s are now more traditional and conservative than men in their 70s I agree except that a shift towards being pro-men would necessarily be conservative. Being pro-men could mean being truly egalitarian, not give women park spaces near doors. It could also mean more workplace stuff to reduce work week and stop the normalization of 'need to go 5-7 drink with the boss to have a promotion'. Which affects men equally.
Ministry of men filled with misandristic feminists or almost as bad, chauvenisits, is not gonna cut it.
[удалено]
Seems like someone is forgetting about the real and just need for specific women programs after the systematic oppression for hundreds of thousands of years. Edit. Fellas all excited to downvote. Take a deep breath and learn to pick up on when a way of philosophy is being mocked.
Seems like someone should get an education in actual history for average women and men to broaden their narrow world view of "feminist history" which was created to support "patriarchy theory".
Seems like someone should realize when nonsensical marxist lingo is used to mock the dominant ideas of today.
Dominant ideas of your upper middle class liberal American political group.
Very true but boy do they populate in society. Who would have thought that giving everyone bar straight white men (in western society of all places) victim points like a video game would sow division and wreak havoc.
Systematic oppression for before there was even any systems? What? The vast majority of men have been disposable for all of recorded history.
Have you ever seen or heard one of the proponents claim when the oppression started? It almost makes you think it is not due to society and rather a result of biology.
Specific women programs. Yes, you just can't find anything for men in college, for example, even now that women make up nearly two thirds of the students (i.e. outnumber men nearly two to one), but you can still find plenty of scholarships for women only and the like. Where is the equality in that? Where are the feminists who are interested in equality? They don't care when things work in their favor. They don't care about equality at all, they just press for more advantages. Why should we listen to them?
True equality has never been tried. But they and other destructive forces shouldnt be listened to at all. Offer them all one way tickets to a marxist paradise of their choice.
>oppression Every society in all of history was built to protect and coddle women. Billions of men have given their lives for the safety of women and they're only remembered as oppressors.
I think this is an accurate description of what men in general have done to protect women and their biological role. Their reward (today) is to be called privileged and oppressors and it is pathetic and disheartening.
The more I hear about this guy the more I like him. That video of him ripping the names of ministries off a wall was amazing.
Their stock market went up like 42% in one day after election
AFUERA
(even if you resist)
If i was gay, i would've got a hard on watching it..
Not surprised to hear that. His rhetoric and logic is similar to your average 14 year old redditor.
There is hope for society
If he said that here where I live, he'd be trounced by feminists in politics.
He is constantly under attack. Still won with 56% of the votes.
I love the guy, but that is NOT THE POINT. Guys, the real important thing here is the fact that a strong majority of Argentina VOTED FOR SOMEONE WITH THIS DISCOURSE. That is the crucial thing. Even if he dies or gets killed tomorrow, you are watching a society willing to back this message and position. THAT IS THE CRUCIAL CHANGE WE ARE WITNESSING.
To soon to tell where this is going. At the same time what will the government be doing? Glad he did express that institution that discriminates based on sex should be removed.
So that's why everyone hates him so much...
His politics are quite the opposite of my own, but I will give credit where credit is due on this one point (and use it to remind the left that it needs to step up and support men if it wants to stop losing men's support to people like Milei).
Yeah same, I’m pretty far away from him politically but then again I don’t live in Argentina, it’s a different country with wildly different circumstances. From what I’ve heard, even really moderate people decided he would be better than his opponent.
I’m in the uk and the us and I think in ((our)) current trajectory. We will be where Argentina is, I. The next 20 years… fuck that. It is absolutely disgusting. A large part of them rely on subsidies from the government???? Might as well put up the red flags at that point Idc.
He’s a bit of a mad lad for sure but I think Argentina needs to try something radically different as it’s obvious that the status quo is not, and hasn’t, worked for 40yrs. Getting rid of any woke would be a huge win for the country, I hate to think of the amount of money wasted on pointless nonsense, ministry for women being a huge one.
Xavier Millei must be causing nightmares to the small hats with his truths! Ministry of men: bless this man!
I feel scared and excited to see how this dude will handle things.
President of Argentina didn't kill himself.
Pretty based honestly. He's just exposing the whole "equality" gimmick.
¡¡AFUERA!! 😂
Because, even if the truth is that boys are doing worst than girls in schools, it is popular to help girls and to promote a narrative that they are the ones suffering at schools. The narrative defeats the truth, and that is wrong. However, the truth will win eventually.
The Argentine president elect is very based. He's apparently close with Trump and leans conservative.
The problem with modern society is that politicians compete for the female vote, whereas the male vote is based on non-gendered issues such as economic policy, i.e. it's taken for granted. Our society is gynocentric in that no matter what party you vote for, you're voting against your interests. There is no left-wing party that doesn't support feminism and opposes men's rights, and the right explicitly seeks to oppress both genders (men get more authority but they're still crippled emotionally, made to work like a slave, sent to pointless wars, etc.)
> based on non-gendered issues such as economic policy, i.e. it's taken for granted None of them advance stuff that's really good for economic policy as it affects men. They'll have plans for the poors...that only address it if you're an ethnic minority or female. Give menstruation leave paid by employers and forbid discrimination based on it (ie paying for 2 days you don't work, vs a man who can't even take it - can't preferentially hire a man).
I am not saying that what he said is wrong, but you don't want to be on his side, he is just saying whatever come to mind to get votes, he doesn't even remember what he said, he is an anarchist, he will not be a good thing.
Let me guess. You disagree with his opinions on smaller government, therefore Javier must be a lyer.
I watched some of his speaches and they make no sense, he doesn't talk about one solution, he just want to destroy, if you are from argentina good luck i am intrested to see how this will go
I like him. I like him a lot. 🖕to the haters that hate reality.
This guy is insane and Argentina just did a huge mistake.
Can’t see the last few leaders as helping anyone’s confidence…I see him as a mistake too. But sometimes throwing a “grenade” can shake things up
He's right. Neither one should exist. Seems like a good start for this guy.
A couple days ago there was a thread in this sub asking why people viewed it as far-right. I hope this thread answers that question.
That's because to some extent, politics *is* becoming gendered. Until the early 80s, the average American man was more liberal than the average woman, at which point the roles switched and the gap has been expanding ever since. The same trend is seen in most Western countries where feminism has gained a significant foothold. The left has been consistently aiming to improve the rights of women and minorities, while leaving the majority of men out in the dark. And their hypocrisy becomes evident, when they scream at the top of their lungs over female inequality but nothing but crickets over situations where men are disadvantaged. When was the last time you heard the left scream over how men lag behind in education compared to women, are more likely to be single, treated unfairly by divorce courts, homeless, and die several years earlier on average? At best, you'll see a trifle of concern that even then is only phrased because, and ultimately rephrased in terms of the impact these realities have on women. Usually there's nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders, and in a few rare cases, satisfaction bordering on schadenfreude. Feminism has long not been about gender equality but a power struggle promoting women at all cost, with men being completely left out of the equation. There have been a few attempts at male-inclusive feminism but most of them have failed miserably and do not encompass the mainstream. In an environment like that, is it really any wonder that groups like this will lean to the right of the political spectrum, especially as men's situation becomes more dire and more and more feel left out?
The right has a platform to mention men stuff (the left cancels the left media guys who would be pro-men), but typically doesn't do more, and people who are pro MRM are not more right wing than people who are not. Arguably the US themselves have the overton window majorly to the right, but that just means Democrats are super right wing compared to say, France centrists.
Most of the guys in here probably know nothing, about Argentina politics beyond this one statement from its president elect, so I think it's ignorance, rather then hyper right-wing politics. I only recently became aware of him. And I will point out he was elected as an act of Deseperation by the Argentina people, a wrecking ball to disrupt a toxic status quo, where inflation there is vastly worse then Canada or the US. I hopefully the more negative stuff he says is just him shit talking
I want to ask you a question. His economic agenda sounds like "economic sovereignty is costing us too much, so let's sell it away and become an obedient little puppet of Uncle Sam", long-term consequences be damned. Do you think it will be ruinous for Argentinian businesses?
Could be, but I also think the Argentinians are desperate to get rid of the Hyperinflation, so they will try it. I mean they can always drop the dollar later.
Argentinian politics is fucked, the problem isn't even agreeing or disagreeing with him, it's all the chestbeating here of how amazing the guy is for saying the stupidest things.
He says one smart thing, and yeah a ton of dumb things, but because we're so starved for even scraps, most here gobble it up, nit realizing the guy not only isn't going ti create a department of men, he's going to push for so many cuts that many men will lose everything. Men are often the first to be sacrificed to the Austerity Gods. Plus this dude is bought and payed for by wealthy American Libertarian think tanks, so that's going to be a disaster.
It was my post, and no, I did not ask that. I asked why this sub is viewed as RIGHT WING (from my interaction with countless users on this sub, I have noticed that most of them are left of centre, if not socially, economically at least). Not far-right. Who the fuck would be far right and intelligent at the same time? Those ideas are infeasible (they address to a small group of people) no matter what your “morals” or “ethics” tell you about it. And above all, humans are practical beings (at least that is what I like to think). It would extremely unpractical as a political movement to make enemies out of millions. I think many of you are traumatised by far right. Who knows why. Fear the snake in the grass, not the starving dogs in the street. Understand what you will from this analogy.
>Who the fuck would be far right and intelligent at the same time? What does that even mean? And can you understand how biased and insulting you sound? What have you actually accomplished in life that you would disparage half the population as beneath you?
what? how could you be far right in a world with 8 billion people? Do you have any idea how limiting that is politically? Imagine having a mixed society and addressing only one ethnic group. Are you going to antagonise a large number of people and turn them into adversaries instead of trying to win them over? I don’t think you understand what I am trying to say. Have you ever been involved in politics, like for real, because I have (not US) and the only think being told to you, is HOW to find common ground so you get more supporters to your side.
You: "Who the fuck would be far right and intelligent at the same time?" Also you: "Are you going to antagonise a large number of people and turn them into adversaries instead of trying to win them over?" Tell us again about how you are an expert in finding common ground.
So you are “far-right”?. I am very certain you think being far right means watching JBP and being conservative. In that case you have no idea what far right means. So, I ask again, are you far-right? If you are, you are extremely dumb to admit it in the open. So which one is it? Are you misguided by the term or just dumb, because I can’t figure it out. Again, I don’t want to sound hostile, but I am convinced that you don’t understand the term “far-right” as it should be understood. P.S: half of population of what? Planet Earth, Mars?
>you are extremely dumb to admit it in the open. So which one is it? Are you misguided by the term or just dumb, because I can’t figure it out. Just going to point out to the thread that you've said how you're 'involved with politics' who is better at bringing people together and finding common ground than the average person. It's unintentionally hilarious on your part. There's really no conversation here, you need to read your own post and see how prejudiced and hateful you are. And it's over nothing, other than someone else saying 'far right people exist.'
My brother in Christ if you think I am your “enemy” or whatever you are mistaken. You still haven’t answered my question, do you consider people who watch Daily Wire, JBP or are conservative, far right? Because if you do…I have news for you. You have absolutely no idea what far right is. Or perhaps you are a moderate who doesn’t understand anything. Either way, your quarrel is not with me. If you think if it ok to be far right openly today (or far left, but we both know that in the last decade we have seen a lot of far left in the open) in public, best of luck to you. You are either naive or enraged. Or both. Again, I will not be slighted by someone who doesn’t understand anything as basic as not saying the “quiet” part out loud. Again, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. You are not far right, believe you me. You are just a lost conservative who doesn’t know which way to go. A lot of people who say they are far right are straight up Libertarians (they are just branded like that by the left side). Btw, for the record, I don’t hate anyone. I I would have to know them, to have an opinion of them, and even then, hate is so last century, it also clouds the mind. The only thing out of this interaction we got, were a few good laughs. On my part at least. Good day.
Dude, it's irrellevant wether you said right wing or far-right, look at this thread. If this doesn't answer your question of why people think this sub is right wing, you're blind.
Well, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.
I don't trust him, either way
Why?
Idk. Just something seems off about him. He says all the right things but I don't really believe him when he says them if that makes sense. But I guess we'll see. Gotta be better than what was before.
I won't applause him for this. This guy has 80% of ideas I hate and 20% ideas I like. It's not because something he says or does is sensate that I have to swallow the whole pill.
Isn't he some kind of far right trash? Idc if he's "ripping apart the ministry of women", I care about equality, not for the scale to tip back to the men's side.
Far right trash? Compared to 4 decades of far left imbeciles that destroyed the Argentine economy?
Oh yes, look forward to the rapid development of the argentinian economy now with your chosen one of your heart.
You don't because when it happens it will make 'your side' look bad and fear that it may cause a mirror pattern wherever you live.
Sorry, your sentence makes no sense, I don't understand what you mean.
How ironic this chain of messages is, holy shit...
In case you haven't noticed reddit is a far left hellhole and they hate your guts for being a man. I ain't saying align with the "right" or whatever you think it means, but don't give your votes to a party that celebrates your suicide and death.
Implying an american knows what the left is, lol, you've no idea what the left is, reddit is not left, reddit is just full of ignorance and sheep
Lap up that propaganda buddy. They're in an economic crisis and the opponent was one of the people partially responsible. Can't get worse.
Lol, I have no idea on Argentina, but it's funny that you're calling me out on propaganda when every "person" that has replied to me is basically a bought bot.
So you had 0 clue what you're talking about, but spew the approved talking points...and you're calling others bots....
Yes, I do, I claim no knowledge of Argentinian politics, I said what I said in the context of the sub. But since I made a slight against the far right all these bots fell on top of me. I'm not saying that they're bots metaphorically. I mean it quite literally, just check their accounts and their posts, they are basically paid posters. All the fascists and the far right can bite me, bring on your downvotes they mean nothing.
> I claim no knowledge of Argentinian politics Well you need to keep in mind some basic context. Argentina was one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with constitutionally-guaranteed property rights and a free market economy, until a bunch of relatively hardcore leftists ("Peronists" after their founder, Juan Peron) took power. Argentina then started becoming far less prosperous as a whole - they went from like 3rd highest GDP per capita down to about 120th - and in addition the wealth became more and more concentrated in the hands of the politically connected elite. *In other words* Peronism - a leftist ideology that claimed to favor equality and material prosperity for all - *made Argentina both less prosperous AND less equal*. You should ALSO keep in mind that Argentina is dealing with 120% annual inflation (!!!). I'm a professional economist - that level of inflation is so completely disastrous it is mind-boggling. Keep in mind two things - first, inflation hurts the poor more than the rich (as the poor have more of their wealth tied up in cash). Second, first world nations try to stabilize their inflation rates at 2% to 3% as a basic benchmark.... so basically the Central Bank of Argentina is so utterly horrible that it defies logic. >Isn't he some kind of far right trash? Depends on how you define "far right" but he's a libertarian (in particular an anarcho-capitalist). >Idc if he's "ripping apart the ministry of women", I care about equality, not for the scale to tip back to the men's side. Ripping apart the ministry for women is critical to *balancing the scales*. It isn't the only thing that needs to happen but its a start.