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.
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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."
🍆 a 👢, 🔎⚖️.
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.
You're very focused on what Poilievre does, even where it doesn't actually affect you and even though you have no control over his words or actions.
You have complete control over your own words and actions. Nothing any politician does will change who's character that reflects. That's power you are granting him, and it only diminishes yourself. But by all means, have another go at re-articulating your whatabout defense. Maybe the third time's the charm.
He uses his daughter as a prop. Is he your role model now? Being a prop (whether unwilling or conditioned) still does not make a child responsible for her father's behavior. She'll still be affected if Poilievre is removed from leadership, but at least that'll be only once and for a political impact more meaningful than poorly targeted personal revenge.
I used to think leaving people's children alone was the red line Canadians still had the decency to toe.
If we're debating what "the point" is, it looks to me like pettiness is the point. Why else would someone get emotionally invested into an issue that isn't even bothering Poilievre's own personal political rivals?
Rich kids are still children and not political pawns. And hypocrisy is the least of my concerns around the party shamelessly espousing shitty values, but a meaningful concern around the parties and leaders that claim to be better.
If you're so deeply invested in extracting your pound of flesh, endorse making him pay rent between leadership positions. Alternatively, just choose an issue to champion that is considerably more...productive.
https://archive.is/IywFZ