Why Are Right Wing Men So Sad?

Post Reply New Topic

I was talking about the expression in general. But yes..MGTWs would only be offering the pill choice to other men- wouldnt apply to women. So yes.

Thanks NP.

I knew what "drinking the kool-aid" was, and I remember Jonestown when it happened. I could sense that red / blue pills were a similar idea, because they meant the person was believing hyperbole and propaganda to the extent that they'd be brainwashed.

I'm just being fussy about context to try to steer things to remain on topic. In this context it does have a gendered understanding because male supremacists don't attempt to consider women's minds. They'd like to acknowledge them as little as possible.

I think you know that the Montréal attacks were extremely traumatic for me, as a Uni student of the same age. I was quite traumatised by it, and I worked on violence against women / white ribbon campaigns for nearly twenty years afterward. I still commemorate the anniversary every 6th of December, and I went to Montréal on the 25th anniversary for a vigil. Lepine's attack was the first time I learned about or understood sexism, or the illness we now call Incel. I was 21 but had never encountered or experienced anything so horrific related to gender and hate.

I could tell you stories. I saw men from the engineering department running through our women's dormitories with water guns after the attack, pretending to shoot the women as a joke. I saw women hang bedsheets in their windows, saying "No Means No". It was the first time I'd heard that phrase. Some of the men countered with sheets reading "No means More Beer ". The war was on for students. It was a very dark time for me having been assaulted on campus myself.

I feel triggered that you mentioned it, but I know it's relevant to this discussion.

Just making sure. I figured that you would know the derivation of "drinking the kool aid".

But on this site you can never assume anything.

Like if folks know stuff that you think is obvious.

Years ago one lady actually started a thread here asking where the Kool Aide expression came from. And I had to retell the whole Jonestown horror story. Then some hyper literal minded person corrected me with an irrelevent nit pick...and then others corrected him about his correction...and the whole thread devolved into irrelevant idiocy. But I digress.

No problem. I always say that I don't follow media or politics, so it's understandable that you'd think I might not know.

I'm very sorry for that.

I'm also grateful for what you added though because one of the things that's changing. Those pigs saying No means More Beer would be the miserable losers hanging out on MGTOW boards today but their attitudes were more normalized back then. Guys who embrace those attitudes now are bigger social rejects than they were back then so they're more miserable which only makes them angrier and more isolated and the ones who don't break out of that cycle sometimes shatter and act out violently.

I hope the nerve I touched at least communicates how important I consider this because there's been a lot more of those attacks in your current decade than when you were young and I don't want them to be normal by the time you're old and I want the mindsets that inspire them to be eradicated from the earth for the good of humanity (not just in the west either, but everywhere).

It disappoints me to my core when I realize how normalized misogyny was in what were basically the equivalent of 'woke' circles 50 or 100 years ago because even the people who sounded like they had the best attitudes were still f*****g terrible.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 29 Jul 2021, 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's hard for me to comment on any of this with regard to those buffoons at my school. I didn't know any of the engineering men and I don't know if that's how they always felt about women, or whether the murders made everyone go a bit crazy. Chances are it's the former, and I'm not excusing what they did, but it was a time of unprecedented riot from men and women alike. Again, I'm not justifying. I'm just saying I had NEVER seen that attitude before from people my age. Oh, actually, I just thought of something else lol. On my way to first year of Uni as I approached campus in the car with my father, there were bedsheets hanging over the highway bridges saying "Fathers, kiss your virgin daughters goodbye!" My dad thought that was pretty funny. I don't remember it upsetting me. It just seemed like a joke, along the lines of Animal House and toga parties.

I knew about sexism in my parents' generation but my little world seemed quite progressive overall. Then again, I was autistic and had a pretty small world. It was a huge wake-up call for me, either way. Things settled down after the murders, and I started to read about Lepine's ideology. I guess I live a sheltered life. I was absolutely flummoxed by the concept of (unnamed) Incel which was described. In fact, I never heard about that type of mindset again until I joined WP and people used the word Incel. I had to ask what it meant, and of course that reminded me of Lepine.

I was assaulted by a young man / friend on campus my first week of classes and I didn't tell anyone. He bit my nipple off. I don't know why I'm sharing such a graphic detail except to say I was afraid that my parents would make me quit school if I told them. I thought that campus security would blame me. I went to hospital and made up a lie about how the injury occurred so I could be sewn back together. I look back on this and shake my head in disbelief. The man is now a prominent lawyer. I've seen his website. Still, I didn't have a mindset that all men were toxic or that masculinity was bad. I believed that violence was bad, and that Incel was a mental illness or personality disorder. I think I try to reconcile those feelings so that I don't feel guilt and shame for not turning that man in to police.

There's so much more I could tell, to explain why I try to see men and women equally. But I should likely turn in.

Thanks for the information and for being patient as I try to understand this topic.

To some extent it depends on how much they internalize those attitudes and when do they question them.

I do think it's fair to suggest that they were caught up in the moment, but those sorts of attitudes that normalize misogyny for vulnerable men are the sorts of things that get labelled toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity isn't masculinity, it's just the most toxic interpretations of it. When it leads to men having a sense of entitlement to women's bodies or relationships, or when it makes men act in ways that harm themselves because it's tough or macho.

It isn't literally just being a man. The stereotypical Chad probably doesn't even need to worry about masculinity because he measures up. It's guys who fail to measure up in one way or another and overcompensate until it harms them who need to worry about the concept.

Think of the term toxic fandom, it doesn't mean all fans, it just means certain types of behaviours associated with fandoms.

Well I chugged through the video. There's a lot there. He weaves together many different strands of internet reaction: incels, the gender wars and ethnic tension into a singular "Right wing male" persona that can be psychoanalysed and alternately vilified, mocked and pitied. There's much to be said about any given thread, but not much about the whole thesis. He oversimplifies some things, simultaneously overcomplicates others and makes links that are flimsy at best. Even he appeared to realise towards the end (when he talks about anger - it's fine and good - as long as it leads you down the left road rather than the right), that you could make an extremely similar video about the "left wing male" and it would be just as valid.

Example. What were one of the flimsy links, and what are examples for a "left wing male" that could be used for a similar video.

Because they know they cannot always get their way with foreigners/immigrants, LGBTQs, the media, minorities, politicians, science/scientists, voters, women, the education system, their own children, and people further to the left on the political spectrum.

Note how often they defend homophobia, nationalism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia; as well as ignorance, religion, anti-vaxx/anti-mask policies, and the violent overthrow of the American government.

I watched (so far) the first 11 minutes of the video. It would be nice if somebody could summarise the main take-home messages of the whole thing. I got the feeling the video author would have done better to make the whole thing more concise and logically organised. It would probably take me the whole day to analyse such a long podcast and thrash it into such a form, perhaps because of the way my mind works.

But I would guess that the gist of the message is that there's a lot of pressure on men to conform to the ultra-male stereotype of being very tough and bossy, and that it's bad for them and bad for everybody else. Which seems pretty obvious to me. I was a teenager during the late 60s and very much approved of the rebellion that took place against those values. We thought we'd pretty much won, and it was very disappointing to see the whole thing drift back again over the following decades. It likely has a lot to do with the fact that the only time I had a lot of friends was during that rebellion phase of society. I was lucky enough to find a small pocket of resistance during the late 1970s and early 80s, and that was the happiest time of my life in many ways, apart from when I was at work.

I do agree that the same kind of thing is done to women. That was also knocked back wonderfully during the rebellion years, much to my delight, only to go right back to square one again. I always felt a lot better among the "boilersuit feminists" who don't seem to exist any more.

I've often wondered, what went wrong? What were the forces that so successfully put down the rebellion?

That was probably the result of the leading thread title coupled with a 50 minute video, and minimal supporting text - Not everyone has the time to watch 50 minutes of a video, and relies on the title (and text in the initial post) to determine what is being discussed.

I wasn't aware that Mikah had provided the same information either... Flicking through the thread I did come across the inevitable "attack the messenger to avoid discussing the inconvenient content of the message" post, which caused me to do a couple of minutes research on the topic based around sources that would suit those who have certain prejudices and require sources that align with their politics, which may have been where the similarities came from.



If I can find time this weekend, I may try and have a look, although of late I'm unfortunately restricted in what time I can devote to online activities...

As an aside, it would be interesting to know what the video creator's politics are, as a starting\reference point, to determine how balanced they are likely to be with their obesrvations: for instance, a left-leaning person is more likely to attribute "bad" motives\inclinations\beliefs\desires to those on the right, not neccesarily through malice (although that is a common cause), but simply as a result of their different interpretations\prioritisations\understandings\values and how they assign these to events\people\things\etc. - and vice-versa, naturally - with the more "radicalised"\"tribal"(\bigoted?) a person is (at either extreme), the more aggresively they seek to attack\demean\dehumanise those from the other side.

thanks, you caught me before I started going off on Karen King.

In related news ...