Who’s Keeping Men In The Basement Addicted To Porn?
I’m not sure how, but I’ve made something of a career for myself by pointing out utterly banal, not-remotely controversial facts:
Men cannot become women, even if they really, really want to.
It is not white supremacy to work hard or prioritise eating healthy foods.
You don’t have to hate Jews or support terrorists to think revenge killing tens of thousands of Palestinian kids is a bit much.
Things like that.
But in my article, Why White American Men Chose The Bear, I made one of my most controversial arguments yet: men, including young, white men, are not all racist, patriarchy-enforcing bigots.
I argued that nobody, not even straight white men, deserves to be judged by the standards of the worst people in their “group.” Nobody should be blamed for things somebody who looks kinda, sorta like them did in the past. Nobody, nobody at all, should be demonised because of the skin or genitalia they were born with.
Kathy wasn’t so sure.
Kathy:
I don’t get it. Men feel upset that no one’s listening to them, but they aren’t saying anything tangible. Women aren’t keeping them out of college or trade school or anything else. Women are doing their thing, working, studying, focusing. Why aren’t men? Who’s keeping men in the basement addicted to porn not getting some kind of education?
What are they working to achieve?
Steve QJ:
Men feel upset that no one’s listening to them, but they aren’t saying anything tangible.I submit that if you think this it's because you aren't listening to them.
And also, that your attitude is likely very different when it comes to people of colour and women and the LGBT community and on and on. This is exactly the problem I'm pointing to.
If, for example, you hear about people of colour falling behind in the education system, is your response simply, "why aren't they working, studying, focusing"?
Do you recognise, in the cases of women being underrepresented in the C-Suite or in STEM, that sometimes people need help or encouragement or even just to be listened to as they talk about their challenges?
Do you reduce LGBT people, en masse, to people huddled in their basements addicted to porn?
So my point is that there's a massive empathy gap in society when it comes to men, and it's leading to a lot of men, especially young men, growing up feeling alienated and resentful. Yes, of course, they need to take responsibility for themselves, but they also deserve to be treated with as much compassion and seriousness as anybody else.
Kathy:
I’m not sure you’re understanding my question.
I’m not unempathetic. I’m asking what I’m being asked to be empathetic about.
POC, women, LGBTQ folks are discriminated against. They’re still kept out of jobs for example. Men aren’t being kept out of C suited. Of course women have needed help up. Because they were denied entry automatically since time began. POC same. LGBTQ same. These groups still fear for their lives today in many situations.
I can’t identify which thing men are experiencing that is excluding them from society. Where are they being excluded? Is it that they have fear that at some point they will be excluded?
All over everywhere there’s discussion of the explosion of porn consumption among young men which is why I said that. Even if they’re in their upstairs room building a model airplane, then. Their own apartment.
Is this just fear of change in general?
Steve QJ:
Men aren’t being kept out of C suiteYes, some men are. The problem is this collectivised view of men. If some men are in the c-suite, then obviously all men are fine and thriving. It’s the same calibre of argument as saying that because Obama became president, racism throughout America was solved.
There are no scholarships for men. No assistance programs for men. No talk shows devoted to talking about the issues that men face. And this goes double for straight white men. The only place he can hope to find anything like this on the political right. So how is it even remotely surprising that these young men feel more drawn to the right?
If you're a white, teenage boy, today, trying to get into college or applying for a corporate job, you, as an individual, not as a demographic class, are at a disadvantage. Because many of the people around you get extra consideration purely because they're not white men.
And sure, we can all sit here and explain the story of historically disadvantaged groups. But this correction is of absolutely no comfort to him. He didn't disenfranchise anybody, all the decades of privilege he keeps hearing about happened before he was born, and when he talks about this, he gets shouted down as a privileged white male who hates diversity.
So it's not about fear of change, he didn't experience the past to be able to detect a change, he just wants to feel as if he's being given a fair shake, and that his concerns get taken as seriously and listened to as empathetically as everybody else around him. And as this conversation is demonstrating, he doesn't get to feel that.
Porn consumption is an issue, sure, but it's nothing to do with the issue I'm pointing to here.
Kathy:
MIT demographics class of 2028:
Men 50%
Women 48%
Asian American 47%
Caucasian 37%
African American 5%
Caucasian and Black men if logical should be complaining about the unfairness of how much Asian Americans study.
Or studying more themselves.
Of course men voted to the right. That’s zero surprise. There isn’t a woman on the planet who could have been elected US president. Dems needed to have picked a belligerent, showy, egotistical white man to run if they wanted to win.
Steve QJ:
There isn’t a woman on the planet who could have been elected US president.I don't think this is true at all. I think Kamala was hampered by a few things, partly, yes, that she was a woman, but much more that she's a pretty terrible communicator and that she couldn't separate herself from a deeply unpopular status quo given that she was part of the administration that people blamed for the status quo.
Data show that around 7% of American voters would never vote for an African American president, no matter how qualified. We all know how that worked out. For women, it's around 8%. For gay men, if memory serves, it's around 21%.
I am, of course, well aware, that the playing field isn't level. But again, here, we're talking about demographics. And while there are obviously times when this is important to look at, it seems some people on the progressive Left have completely forgotten that we also need to be able to zoom in to think and empathise at the level of the individual.
Similarly, there are obviously many factors that affect enrolment to MIT, say, I'm not arguing that men's problems or any groups problems are all external. I'm saying that the members of one group have a harder time having their issues listened to and taken seriously than any other group. And you're literally proving my point.
This conversation wouldn't be happening if I'd written an article about the challenges women or black people face, for example, even though we can obviously both point to very rich and successful women and black people. If I wrote about black people only being admitted to MIT at 5%, your analysis wouldn't (only) be, they should be studying more. In fact, I strongly suspect that even if you thought that, you wouldn't say it.
Kathy:
You haven’t listed problems specific to men other than lack of scholarships for men only. Every state college offers scholarships.
I’m not going to research it. You’re probably right that white male (only) scholarships don’t exist.
Not every man has *access* to C suite jobs but every woman now has *access* to those same jobs? I doubt it. Men have access. Men still heavily dominate upper management/exec positions. There’s no M/F parity yet.
I have empathy for men afraid of all this change. Yes I sure do.
I have empathy for men that women are now more hostile verbally to men than women have been in the past. Men have always been hostile or dismissive of women trying to get their fair share until very recently. still, I’m sure men are shocked now that women aren’t backing down.
I have little empathy for men who don’t want to have to do what other groups have always had to do to get access to white male realms in every aspect of society, which is work hard.
Actually not true. I have empathy that they weren’t taught to work hard. It’s hard to slam into adulthood and discover how hard it is if no one prepared you as a kid. Most of us learned it very young and have never stopped working hard.
We’re between 2 major paradigms. Old male-power paradigm hasn’t left. Many are clinging to it. New female/male co-power structure isn’t here. Many are afraid of it.
Interesting chat. Thanks.
Steve QJ:
Men have always been hostile or dismissive of women trying to get their fair share until very recently.Until you can differentiate between men as a demographic class and the vast majority of individual men, this conversation is a waste of time.
And most of the men I'm focused on here were only born very recently. They are nothing to do with the issues you're talking about.
Through this conversation, I had the icky feeling, a feeling I’m sure most men can relate to, that I had no right to be saying any of this.
That I was being a whiny man, mansplaining the problems of my fellow man-babies instead of putting on my big-boy pants and manning up.
After all, haven’t men had it easy for the entirety of human history?
Well, no! Some men have.
Some men have raped and pillaged and murdered, but others gave their lives to stop them.
Some men have hoarded wealth and power, but others died in wars and coal mines and on the streets in abject poverty.
Some men have used their wealth and power to control the wheels of society but others, most others, are just as invisible and overlooked as anybody else.
Talking about these other men shouldn’t and needn’t devolve into a competition over who’s had it worse throughout history. Acknowledging that men face problems too shouldn’t come with the risk of getting cancelled. Talking about issues that affect millions of people shouldn’t be so reflexively dismissed as whining.
Kathy is right, the world has changed a lot in the past fifty years. Women’s rights, racial equality, gay marriage, we’ve taken great strides towards a world where everybody has a voice.
I just think it should be banal and not at all controversial to be serious about meaning everybody.
It is important to understand the implications of the fact that we are a sexually dimorphic species.
Women have never been as powerless as they are often portrayed. Women’s power has mostly been indirect because female aggression tends to be indirect. Many women refuse to admit it occurs at all, even to themselves.
The objectIves of female aggression are not always beneficial. Women are not angels, any more than men are. Lady Macbeth is fiction, but the character rings true. We know how male misbehavior looks. We have not agreed on a catalog of female misbehavior. Corporate conduct standards focus on male typical misconduct and ignore female typical misconduct, almost as if it doesn’t exist. There is, of course, misconduct perpetrated by both sexes. Embezzlement comes to mind.
We need to require positive-sum behavior from everyone. That’s another thing to catalog. What positive sum games are more typical of women than men? How can we reward women for playing them?
Another excellent post Steve.
You mentioned the fact that the young men affected didn't see the change over the last fifty years. I am old enough to have seen them and think it worth noting that one change has weakened them. I don't say this disparagingly.
When I was young, males learned how to live with hierarchy. Made the team, last chosen in pickup games, you flunked and did a year over in school. All taught that you earned your place thru effort and life isn't fair. You got stuck with genetics.
Now everyone is a winner. You get a trophy for showing up. You pass to the next grade in school even if you can't read or make change. You have a digital world and are not well equipped to deal with the real adult world where everyone doesn't get a trophy. You didn't experience that as a child like we did fifty years ago, or at least fewer do.