ICMI'18 Professor Eric Anderson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 жов 2024
- PATREON / paulelam
DONATE/SUBSCRIBE anearformen.com...
BITCOIN www.avoiceform...
Fee for service consulting available.
anearformen.co...
Book with Paul here:
redpillsolutio...
Facebook
www.facebook.c...
An Ear for Men
anearformen.com/
Say Goodbye to Crazy
www.amazon.com/...
First things first. This dude has more confirmation bias for a distorted view of male sexuality than most feminists. Projection. It's not just a room at the back of the theater.
All that said, I am glad the MRM is not the echo chamber that feminism is. He was allowed to speak his mind, and that's ok, even if I have to down vote a video on my own channel.
It was with great trepidation that I too down voted this video. I am incredibly skeptical about the veracity of his data. Decades of feminists debasing masculinity and he attributes a decline in men identifying as such to “progress”. He had many salent points but it felt much more like triangulation.
In one breath he claims to believe that there is no such thing as Patriarchy. And the next he is laying society’s ills at its feet. By name.
He admits the social sciences really aren’t scientific but demands his conclusions are valid from suspect data.
I think that is a little heavy on the projection "strontiumXnitrate". He is gay and seems to have projected on his own work a little, but he had a lot of valuable sentiment, at the very least I would love to see gay men be looked at as men and not "women" again. Too many gay men are looked at like purse dogs, they were(are?) a fashion accessory for some women. I like types like Milo who are over the top on purpose for political reasons, but are honestly pretty masculine in principle, or someone like Dave Rubin who is gay but that isn't him as a person, he is a man who happens to be gay, not a gay lifestyle that happens to have attached itself to a man.
Having been trained by Kimmel, and still considering him a close friend and authority on masculinities, Professor Anderson is still firmly within the feminist framework, and unwarrantedly optimistic, in my opinion, about the possibility of feminists making room for (real) men's issues. He said at one point that all his feminist friends agreed with his arguments. I'll be interested to see how Anderson responds when some of his feminist friends, perhaps Kimmel himself, start pressuring him to get back in line.
I don't want us to become an echo chamber, but having this guy as a speaker is like having the fox in the hen house.There's nothing in this talk that challenges any feminist paradigm at all. he pretends to reject patriarchy theory and then throw in our faces the idea that millennials are rejecting the masculinity of their fathers (which is homophobic, angry, and violent) and becoming more human?!
Seriously, what the fuck?!
"like having the fox in the hen house."
you know the phrase "keep you friends near, but keep your enemies closer "?
well maybe that is a good approach here, not that i consider him an enemy, but merely that keeping him within view allows us to keep an eye on him.
as much as I may disagree with him ( except the gender paradox which i agree with) I would like him to speak so we can all hear another view point. even if i don't agree with it , i do want to know what others are thinking so that we can know what we are up against.
there is always room for change if you give a person enough information, an open mind and a willingness to accept that their views may change as well( cassie jaye for example)
I don't need a degree in gender studies to know that I don't like the way women treat men today.
not only woman western society as a whole
One thing you will never hear a guy say: "I don't like the way HE TREATED ME!" NEVER ....
There are some things I agree with here and numerous things I disagree with. Homophobia is a tool that is used to Police male sexuality, because controlling male sexuality, demonising it and shaming men for it, is a key mechanism our gynocentric culture has historically employed to control men. Any expression of male sexuality that is not focused on serving women's needs and not based on female approval, has historically been quashed and the men made example of. The graphs on men identifying with what it means to be masculine or feminine in the culture are questionable. When the mainstream media, academia, politics, the mental health field and our institutions constantly demonise masculinity and assign everything bad in the world to it over several decades, naturally men will want to distance themselves from masculinity. The graphs are partly the result of 50 years of unchecked feminist indoctrination of society. Society has been conditioned by feminist influence in those spheres of society, to accept a distorted, negative and demonic image of what masculinity is. We now have feminists going into schools and indoctrinating boys as young as 6, with the concept of toxic masculinity and how all men need to stop being violent to women. It is reprehensible and unforgivable. It would be interesting to compare those graphs, to the rise in the suicide rate of men, particularly young men and whether there is a pattern.
There is also a more alarming factor behind those graphs. When the environment is saturated with endocrine disruptors and estrogen mimickers, then the natural development of males will also be disrupted and that is going to impact men at a neurological and physiological level and how they perceive themselves in relation to the world and to masculinity. Testosterone and sperm count have been in sharp decline for 50 years and research has shown those endocrine disrupting chemicals are involved in that decline and like most of men's issues this problem is rarely discussed.
There has certainly been to some degree, a positive change in how men perceive themselves, but the moment men decide not bow to gynocentrism and think of themselves as human beings and dare to talk about their issues, they attract the ire of feminists and traditionalists alike. They are told to shut up and accept their male privilege by feminists and they are told to shut up and stop being man-children by traditionalists. Not a single thing has changed in wider society to account for men in increasing numbers, rejecting the rigid gynocentric male role of protector and provider by society and going their own way (MGTOW). All feminists have done is promote an exaggerated version of the protector and provider role.
As for the remark that the men's movement should drop the label men rights and replace it with "gender equality activist", I would agree with that in part (although not exactly what he is proposing), but not with the line of thinking behind why it might be a good idea. That line of thinking that the movement has an image problem with calling itself "men's rights" and therefore should change it's name, is part of the problem and not a solution to it. Notice women are free to name their organisations based on their female gender, but men are not. That is gynocentrism in action. We have no problem in this culture with women only organisations and female labels to women's groups, but the moment men dare to call a movement for men's rights, the men's rights movement, suddenly we have an issue. The same reasoning was behind the recent changes to the Boy Scouts in the US and countless other examples. Nothing will change for men as long as men continue to make concessions for being male. There is nothing wrong with the name of the men's movement. What is wrong is the image that feminists and their kind have been allowed to make of the movement and men in general with impunity for decades, with no accountability.
The obvious question is why would anyone have a problem with a movement called, "The men's rights movement". The only answer to that is people that have a problem with men having rights and being their natural selves. Having the courage to claim back language from the feminist movement, particularly the words male, men and masculinity and express those words in healthy ways in the culture, is the way forward. To reject them, is a step backward and denies half of humanity. I beg to differ on the name change to marriage equality. The vote passed because the culture had changed, not because of the name change. This is often the problem with social science and the soft sciences in general. Correlation is not causality.
Like one of the questioners said. Feminists do not care what you call yourself. To them you are the enemy if you do not pass their ideological purity test. To focus on the exceptions to the rule of individual feminists being supportive of addressing men's issues and I would agree there are exceptions, does not negate the fact that at it's core, feminist ideology inspires hate and victimhood and demonises men and breeds extremism. I have not seen any feminists standing up against the bigotry facing men and calling the feminists in their ranks out for their bigotry. Aside from Sommers and Paglia, the rest are silent or actively support misandry. That is not going to change by implementing half-measures.
We live in a gynocentric culture and until men are prepared to proudly identify as men and reclaim the masculine words of the English language, men will never be truly recognised for the complete human beings that they are. It is not the men's movement that needs to change itself. It is the gynocentric culture that we live in that must change.
Now with that said, Dr. Warren Farrell has spoken about the need for a gender transition movement involving both sexes. I am supportive of a parent movement like that, that involves both men and women's movements coming together and working on issues that involve both sexes and also supporting each other. You could call it, "The International Federation Of Gender Equality". An organisation made up of representives from different men and women's movements in different countries.
Men do need their own space and organisation though, to freely express themselves and because of natural inclinations the culture has to bend to gynocentric patterns of thought and behaviour. There is a need for men to have their own movement. For men, by men and importantly named for men. Symbolism does matter and having the freedom to express masculinity unashamedly in the name of a men's organisation, is a critical step in the right direction and to fail to do so is self-censorship and regression.
There is no reason why a men's movement cannot exist alongside a healthy women's movement (not modern feminism) and work together under the umbrella of a parent organisation like a gender transition movement, that Warren has spoken about. That is what I will stand for and accept. But I am not going to support measures that attempt to censor men for being men. Such an approach is subversive. Exactly the type of subversion feminists have routinely employed on countless men's organisations they have captured and distorted to fit their agenda.
Largely correct, but irrelevant. All men need to do... Is walk away. The rise of explicit or implicit homosexuality or alternatively anti homopopia... Is intended to facilitate ghosting in MGTOW.
A great defense against male bashing is to hide in plain sight.. And as a fall back to shame femists with accusations of gay bashing.
Frankly what man should hesitate to file an HR claim against a woman who stated or implied that he was gay. Even better.. A defense against a harassment charge.
The problem is that an academic definition of masculinity authored by women, feminists, and homosexuals is not likely to be any less biased against heterosexual men.
I say we let feminists demonize the term "gender equality".
The general public agrees with gender equality, so feminists will be digging their own graves.
@Marc Grundfest A respectful question, sir. Who are you to declare what men need to do?
If you removed the word "real" from before men, I'd agree with you. But personally, I never trust anyone who puts an adjective in front of the word man.
And you don't have to be a grammar Nazi to reject the Real Man fallacy.
"90 percent had cuddled with another guy"... That's an extremely high percentage. I'm not buying it, lol. How many people were involved in this study? I played football my whole life, including college and pro...pretty sure there were only a handful of suspect people.
as the one in the Q&A asked: where did the data came from, what are the definitions? (if a hug after eg. a soccer-goal counts as cuddling, the numbers may be true after all... my math-prof rightfully said: "there's one universal rule: it's all a question of the definition". she was so damn right!)
Physical touch was never controversial or even deemed homosexual. It's all about the meaning the gesture has in the specific cultural context.
A kiss between males can be as heterosexual as one with a woman. I grew up with Russian immigrants and even the hetero machos do this all the time.
We can't just infere a result, that culture has changed, without looking at a potentially changed attitude an individual holds towards the gestures being looked at.
But Micheal Keller is right too.
I wrestled, does that count as cuddling? There was often blood.
ThePrittmaster
Everybody has a different "gay threshold", lol. Cuddling and kissing another dude is in a whole different ballpark. I've given many "good game" ass smacks. That's a lot different than cuddling and kissing a guy. If I would have ever seen a teammate cuddling with another dude I would have immediately pulled the gay card. Don't care about popular opinion, either
Yes, a bit too far up the rainbow for me. "Cuddling" is loaded language to the max degree and he knows it.
Looking forward to the first academic textbook on masculinity by a man. Looking forward to male gender studies by men. Can't believe it's happening.
Patronizing, yet there's no equivalent of matronizing...so tired of man bad woman good.
secv it's the textbook Anderson is writing.
the textbook needs to be written by a true Alpha male
strongweapon well sadly then it would be totally blackballed. Sad truth.
A gay man calling himself a professor of masculinity. Oh the irony!
40:55 "You do not have the right to tell people what their identity label is, just like I can't say you're not straight."
And who are you to have the right to tell people which word they use to describe a set of ideas? Right.
Being straight has a narrowly defined and ubiquitously accepted meaning, it's a description, not a label. You don't "identify" as straight, you are straight, we settled on that terminology. Just like you don't identify as male, you are male. We all came to agree that this sequence of letters and sounds means abstract idea X. This is how we communicate, by settling on common terminology. If you take that away, we're on the level of cavemen again.
Feminism however is a label, pretty much the label of labels because the abstract idea the term describes is so amorphous and inconsistent. We didn't really ever settle for the idea that is behind that, common popular themes are that it's mostly about empowering women, they don't really seem to like men and they believe that at some varying time in history there existed an elusive patriarchy that for some reason wanted to keep women as a class down. Does this exclude some of those "feminists" trying to work towards changing our cultural perception of men? No. Is is likely that they'll change it to the better? Not with all the other nonsense.
MRA is a damn good label. Because it is not a label. It stands for Men's Rights Advocate/Activist. Which is rather narrowly defined, we settled on what men are, what rights are, what an advocate or activist is. It describes an action, you don't have to identify as a MRA, you are a MRA, if you don't like it then change your behaviour. I mean, you can identify as whatever you want. If you tell people that you identify as human, they will look at you funny and think something's wrong with your head, because obviously you are a human. And they might wonder what went wrong with your life that you feel the need to tell people around you that you identify with what you obviously are and whether they have to worry about their physical integrity around you. Because people putting emphasis on them identifying with what they are have a pretty bad track record when it comes to mass violence.
You can keep your "equality" label, I don't want a label and especially not one another person picked for me. I am not for equality of the sexes because I don't see how I should determine at which point they'd be equal. They are very different by nature, so are they "equal" if they potentially could reach the same outcome and actually, how do we measure a hypothetical? Are they equal once they reach a forced equal outcome and why does anyone think this would be a good idea in the first place? Does this supposed "equality" factor in only legal treatment and treatment at the workplace, or also how culture sees people? And at the core of the difference between men and women, we have the family, how do you determine when they are equal if you have two parties fighting for their rights during divorce and a third party that suffers the consequences no matter how the decision went? Tell me your secret how you could come to a conclusion that treats all of them equal, while one of them by the nature of the situation loses out.
The guy in the crowd who said it wouldn't matter what label the MRM takes is right. Feminists would still lie about it anyway and try to demonize it. And trying to co-operate with Feminists has been tried multiple times in the past. They wanted complete control over everything. They don't care for Equality like Eric Anderson thinks they do here. Saying some thing is entirely different than acting upon it, and I have never seen Feminists come out publicly and through activism try to help Men. There might be some out there that have but I haven't seen it yet.
He seems kind of green. He should connect with Prince of Queens on UA-cam for a crash course in how feminism behaves out in the world, not up the ivory towers.
Just so you know guys I think he is worth listening to until the end of his presentation, take what is useful and toss aside the rest.
mrspeigle1. Agree. I don't agree with everything he says and I doubt some of the statistics he spouted off. But, he has great insight and a perspective I do not have and I think it's a good thing to listen to other perspectives. It does not mean you have to agree with all of it but it helps you understand others who may be different than you.
If the anti-masculinity culture contributes to the feminization of men, I don't think men should be compelled to be more feminized in order to be more accepted by society(since typical masculine traits are, at the moment, considered to be "toxic masculinity"). Now if they do it of their own accord then that's fine.
This presenter feels very strongly about the current situation of men being more affectionate/in tune with their feelings. 37:52
GamingTranceSeer you've articulated my thoughts on this so much more clearly than I could. This speaker is just man-shaming in a roundabout way by promoting the idea that this trend of feminization amoung these boys is a victory for masculinity. He's just another feminist gender studies type thinker.
I think, even if you don't agree with Eric Anderson - we can benefit from his disruption of feminist academia. It is more useful that feminists find him palatable so that perhaps they can be slowly persuaded away from their dogmatic extremism. It's an unfortunate fact that Feminism dominates academia and social institutions so it has to be dealt with.
I'm going to go against the trend of the comments section here... but overall his findings in relation to younger men seems plausable (enough) and he seems fairly well reasoned despite smelling a bit of feminist-academia. I may be biased as a younger bi guy, though.
I would challenge his assertion that there were not close relationships between men until recent generations. If you look back through history and the writings of men in that time, you will constantly find descriptions of the brotherhood between soldiers. While this was less tactile, and did not look exactly like a more typical hetero-style "romance" it was nonetheless a close relationship that contained an emotional and caring aspects. I think where Eric comes unstuck, particularly with older men, is that he has a narrow view of what positive relationships between men look like - which is an extremely common feminist fault.
I mostly agree but I imagine that had the sample come from blue collar men rather than sports stars they'd find it hasn't changed much. Also I'm sure given the opportunity to cuddle with a girl they wouldn't with their guy friend. It just seem girls in the younger generations have been poisoned against men and dont care the way they used to
HashTagRealName.... plausible because of forty years of brainwashing and demonization of men in academia, media and culture, emasculation.... and the more recent generations being brought up on leftwing marxist staple classroom diets delivered by feminists pretending to be teachers and being young boys and men afraid of their masculinity lest they be demonized as misogynist or homophobes and be ostracized by feminist schooled females. This guy hits on a few salient points about feminist academia and buzzwords their buzzwords like Patriarchy to attempt to get MRAs onside with him.. which is merely presented just the proverbial jam around a very sour bitter brown pill of crap ...and the rest is verbose garbage and promotion of homosexuality as the new normal... and if you're not down with it then you must be Hitler and a hater.
Listening to this crap could actually cause some men to kill themselves if they were to believe what he asserts...causing them to think there is no hope if this kind of plank is to lead the way.
From darkness to pitch black.
When he asserts vehemently about trends of young men's self reported definitions of masculinity and sexuality is never going away(he only wishes was true)... Never asking why that would be the case so many reject masculinity and clamber to femininity.
Many young men would cut off their dicks to get a shag.
The level of bias in his thinking and assertions and so called research is fucking vertical nevermind slanted.
I have gay friends, I'm not homophobic, but this twerp I dislike more than many feminists... Because he is more dangerous to men and boys I believe... Nothing more dangerous than an enemy you think is a friend.
Phd? Professor? Doctor? What the actual fuck.
Academia is a feminist marxist swamp...and he's having to invent his own niche for doctorate funding. Fuck him.
The other guy in the kilt not that much different.
I'm absolutely appalled.
Arrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
OK but what's your point? I've established that you disagree, but you haven't said about what exactly. Feminists and marxists are almost always completely wrong, but you have to be more specific about what points you are attributing to these ideologies.
I don't think that he is asserting that men by and large do not want/value relationships with women, just that they are less squeamish about exploring relationships with men and having them compared to traditional hetero relationships. Obviously incels exist, and as you said the average guy would definitely give their left nut for a female partner.
On the topic of incels it seems that the common theme among them is that they not only are isolated from women but also from men - complete social isolation, which we know even in the case of animals produces adverse behavior. I would not be so quick to dismiss the utility of these new types of relationships.
Yes, there are questions that have not been asked. Why did men start to identify more feminine attributes within themselves? Is it feminist indoctrination, asserting that everything good is feminine and therefore if you possess good characteristics you must be partially feminine? You're right that's an interesting question.
But like he says, there are very few asking the questions and consequences for those who do - so it's little wonder why. If you want to challenge his research and remove his ability to get funding by debunking it, go ahead. You have to be in it to win it - else you're silent and irrelevant... which is largely what the MRM currently is unfortunately.
HashTagRealName you don't have to be in it to win it. Walk away. Stop playing the game. I will not compromise what is right with any person.
Of course some games may not be worth playing ;)
But, you can't say that others don't have the right to choose what games/systems they want to engage in.
If you are trying to communicate ideas on mass in contemporary society, then what you will need traction in the institutions. If you have other ways, then feel free to share them - I'm not saying you can't, in fact I welcome you to do so. I'm happy to be wrong in this case.
Listening to some of it again and the funny thing is he does seem like a selfmade man and pretty masculine in personality (don't confuse that with dimeanor.) He is very confrontational in a proactive way and called out a lot of people, not conflict avoidant. Men need more of that headbutting personality.
But why kiss another man on the lips, if there is no homosexuality involved?I am a little skeptical of the claim.
You know he makes some good points but at the same time it's really freaking cringey when you lump in mean words on paper with rolling around in the mud desperately trying to avoid getting stabbed while trying to stab the other guy. Violence is Bloodshed and bloodshed only using the word to describe anything else diminishes its meaning.
Cassie Jay has already experienced precisely why we can't successfully shirk the movement's unearned bad reputation.
Human beings don't innately understand complex issues. We always seek to reduce complexity down to something simpler and easier for us to digest. We see this in politics where often times debates about thousands of different issues somehow all come down to one of two categories, both being a party affiliation and where both parties are diametrically opposed to each other.
This is how feminists, and maybe even ourselves sometimes, view gender issues. It is a false dichotomy between men and women's rights as separate issues which are at odds with one another, and both Feminsts and MRAs are the proverbial politicians running for office.
The feminists kicked it off, holding true to the metaphore, by campaigning themselves as the champions of women, not the champions of gender equality, so as to capitalize on the percieved and real disparities they suffered at the time. This gained them power that they continued to wield only to further women.
As a result, men got left behind creating a demand for someone to help men, that is where MRAs come in. A response to the failings of the feminists, to try and bring balance to the gender debate, but the feminists see only a threat to their hard won power and as such they use that power to demonize us.
It was feminists who made gender rights into an adversarial matter, it is feminists who hold the power in today's society, and it is feminists who use that power to demonize us because they perceive us as their enemy.
I say Cassie Jay experienced this because when she started making The Red Pill, as she details throughout the film, when she was confronted with issues faced by men her instinctive response was to try and defend women against them. This was despite the fact that those issues had little to nothing to do with women. She'd had no reason to defend women from what had been said because what had been said was a defense of men, not an attack on women.
However, Cassie, in her original feminist mindset, still percieved it to be an attack on women. That was how she was conditioned to see it, because feminism justifies it's continued neglect of men through asserting that women's issues are still infinitely more dire. To challenge that assertion is a threat because it forces them to consider that doing so is unjust.
So long as feminists hold the power MRAs will be demonized regardless of what label they use because MRAs are a threat to feminism's power because men's issues undermine feminism's justifications for only focusing on women.
A shame that Mike Buchanan cut the mike because he didn’t like what he heard. That says everything. This is the synthesis perspective. Great talk.
Not true. Mike didn't cut the mic, I did :)
We had a very very tight speaker schedule of 45 mins. So a speaker could talk for the full 45 without Q&A or speak for 30 with 15 mins Q&A.
Running on longer would cut the next speakers time down.
Because of the nature of these Q&A we could easily have gone on for another 30mins.
Time is money & all that :)
Hope this has explained the cut.
"they are rejecting their father's masculinity"
He included "violent" in there. wth
Gay Coaches with straight young men. Not buying it
Aye Jay
Right? Lmao. I played football my whole life. I don't have anything against gay people, but it's becoming too mainstream for me. If we found out one of our teammates had cuddled with another dude, you were definitely getting ostracized
Stereotype23
Gay doesn't = rapist... However, if I don't want my son being coached by a homosexual man, that's my choice.
Imago_Dei. You make judgements on this mans character.
Stereotype23
Because he's gay, and I don't wany my son being influenced by a homosexual... Which is my choice
Rory Tennes
If I don't want my son being influenced by a homosexual, that's my choice. You don't get to tell another person who should be around their kids
self protection is not playing victim... And to say No every humans right!
anyway hope your father does fine..GL
Fabulous mind, fabulous insight.
I am not gay or bisexual. This is a smart man with excelent insight.
Thank you !
Rory Tennes you are easily pleased and fooled
C G
Well given that there is no such thing as social *science* , and never was, he's practically a Nobel Laureate..
C G. Really? Explain why you think so.
I did not say I agreed with everything he said. I said he was insightful and I appreciate his perspective. It helps to listen to different perspectives. Better than being in an echo chamber.
Once this vid hits flags up at feminist channels and sources I predict he's going to get utterly denounced for being at ICMI'18.
Good luck to him. I don't agree with big chunks of his message really, but I respect that he was allowed to speak at this event - diversity of opinion is important.
I wish him luck with the inevitable backlash he's going to receive from the rabid idealogues that are sure to set upon him.
the last questioner is right: it´s not distinguishable between the rejection of masculinity and the rejection of male traits, feminism has widened over a lot of negative issues
that, for example, "male" itself stands as an akronym for "violence" is quite a new view....women always applied as less violent, but never before it was called a "male feature", only rarely adopted by women.
So his stats of rejected masculinity could as well be a confusion of cause and effect, but he doesn´t consider that. Not even in his research...hmm.
Seems he fell for it!
but the rest was very interesting, thanks for inviting such opposing voices, too
Patriarchy - "it's like Ghostbusters" - except someone has possibly seen it.
"younger men don't classify themselves as totally masculine because they don't see themselves as violent, homophobic, etc..."
Well, that's a nice list of masculine traits you have there. I wonder why nobody would want to be associated with them. Maybe what you measured is more of a shift in how people see masculinity as defined, rather than a shift in how people express themselves.
"You can't choose how people define masculinity", he says, trying to answer a question precisely about that. Indeed. But you can choose how you frame your questions. Instead of asking "do you see yourself as masculine, ask a series of questions about various, less subjective traits which are less susceptible to change depending on the generational understanding of a nebulous term that has been under attack. That's more work, but who ever said that doing science was easy ?
That's why, as a physicist, I've always said that it would be better to rebrand social sciences as "hard" sciences. Because it is both hard to find any real science in it, and it's really hard to manage to produce any science in it.
I actually agreed with a lot of what he said and other parts seemed informative but some parts like the comments on anti feminism made me cringe...
I've seen in some foreign countries there is much less homophobia, more "touching" and less repulsion between men. They're not the guys that ride the Ninja bikes and puff up their chests for Alpha dominance. Perhaps, they behave more like pre-teen boys do. Some even have what appears to be gay or TS behaviour, but they are actually straight. There are often "Ms. Gay" contests in high school, which is just for fun and straight men often dress up to compete. Many are what we call "nerds" and introverts as young adults. After college, these men seem to find a bride that is highly educated (like they are) and more productive members of society. Also, many more women in these countries are hard working in skilled labour such as welding, injection molding, etc. I've seen that there is biology and cultural indoctrination.
TL;DR: “I’m right, you’re wrong”
I dunno, I'm a bit afraid that if we include feminist talking points, they'll just take over.
I could be wrong though.
I don't see the point. They weren't included for good reasons in the first place.
have you not watched the video? He explains his reasons very well.
You can disagree with them, like I do, but if you just ignore them it makes you look like an idiot.
TAG
Even if they were invited they still wouldn't go in the first place. The MRM has tried countless times to work with Feminists and Feminists still refused, they only want power and control.
this is like suggesting to a patient that we should stitch back on the parasite they just managed to notice and remove.
perhaps this guy should be suggesting the feminist doctrine be changed to embrace equality of opportunity and responsibility at its base, good luck with that.
Thank you?
Great stuff. Thank You.
Perhaps it is not the attitudes of millennial men that are changing but the connotations of the term 'masculine' and 'feminine' themselves. I notice that 'very masculine' according to to Mr Anderson is characterised as 'violent, homophobic' and so on, and I can't help but notice that this is a feminist definition of masculinity. As the terms have been hijacked by feminists, the positive masculine values such as loyalty, courage, perseverance, and so and have been bled out of them. This doesn't leave much to identify with; they can't very well identify as masculine if they no longer understand what that is. Also, feminists have largely succeeded in imbuing the idea of the feminine with a moral ascendency, so, given that most people what to be seen as 'good', perhaps this is what millennial men are identifying with.
I don't buy this. When growing up I have never kissed a dude or did anything inappropriate with one, we played tag, played dodge ball, run around and explore places, talk shit to each other for fun, and some times fight, but we would get over it and become friends after. We never put our heads on each others laps or stomachs, even when older. I've never seen other younger guys do this or older guys unless they were either gay or bi. And even now that I am 30 I still don't see this around me of what he's talking about. This probably does happen in some areas I would imagine, but I personally haven't seen it or experienced it. But how do we know that these people weren't closeted gay or bi guys but were too afraid to come out. But who knows.
Society demonizing Masculinity and more kids growing up in single mother house holds I think plays a big role in this, of why more men aren't Identifying with being masculine. He's still caught up in seeing things through a Feminist lens, which is fine, but I think that will cloud his research more than he thinks it will.
I don't agree with him, but I will commend him for coming and talking.
God this guy is awesome
I know this Man tries to do Good, but "Gender equality", "Feminism", "Feminist" are words that I REALLY Hate, I shouldn't, but thanks to bitches who took it the wrong way but ¿Would it be really worth it to give it one chance?
He misses the point. He conflates the fact that most guys feel less hyper masculine with joining "the cuddle community". Most dudes don't give a dam about homosexuality, they just don't care all!
Did he really call a Man suppressing his emotions for the one´s he loves , to protect them, hunt for them, die for them, "Inhuman" ???
The guy in the audience said that phrase first, and I think the same as you that was a bad phrasing, but I think the point was that being human is a whole list of things and men were not experiencing some of the things on that list, so they didn't get the whole experience.
suppressing your emotions does not mean not to experience them...
but if our ancestors had always given into them some countries
our humans as a species would not exist!
was it bad phrasing i don´t know...we would need him to answer that
U are right he would not say that...
Take a trip to Arlington Cemetery some time ... if you're interested in seeing evidence of the "whatever paradox" you're talking about.
Give him a chance people. He's really cool.
Darren Diaz cool like hot shit
Darren Diaz. Some peoe like their echo chamber. I don't agree with everything he says but I do appreciate hearing a well articulated perspective that may be a little different than mine or new to me.
You can be cool and also wrong at the same time.
zanamaru I've been know to be both more than I care to admit but I'm tryin man! I'm tryin 🙂
Thank you Paul. For getting the Meeting out to all those who couldn't make the meeting.
I like the idea for the Gender Equality Label. Seems like sensible politics. I found his talk interesting. I do find it encouraging academia is beginning to recognize men's issues. I wouldn't expect him to necessarily be in lock step the MRM... just not realistic. But MRM cherry picking some concepts from him may well be worthwhile.
If you look at the MRA list of issues stage there, not one is taking away rights of women, sans windfalls from taking advantage of these laws. Can you say the same of feminism? IMO the Duluth model, penetration-specific rape laws, and VAWA are examples of the opposite.
Also.. mansplaining, manspreading, man cave, dad bod, dad joke, man baby... All derogatory.
Tried to give him an honest hearing but in the end I just wasn't left with anything substantial that he said. Perhaps his point of trying the leftist strategy of changing labels is worth exploring.
Just stop playing the labels game. Labels did nobody any good, because they are devisive by their own nature. Labels are terms on which meaning we didn't really settle in society, you can stick them on anything and some people buy it and some don't. Feminists work hard on the bastardisation of language, they constantly try to mutate descriptive words into labels. Rape, now a label in stores near you. MRA? Yah no, see, those are nazis and they hate women, children and everyone you love, it's not about advocating for mens rights, it's about hating women (pbut). The patriarchy? Yah, men were in charge but seriously they only did that to keep women down because men hate women, they were in charge and they oppressed themselves, so eventually is bad for everyone! Expand with your favourite feminist gibberish.
Using a different label isn't going to do anything, they will still attack you. Feminists attack Egalitarians, what makes you think if MRA's started using a different label they wouldn't attack that one either? It's foolish.
Yeah you know, I wanted to be like screw this guy but you know what? Despite his superficial views and analysis on masculinity, it's certainly not an uncommon one and does deserve a place in a conference like the ICMI. I mean, the dude is wrong lol, but still, if there's a place to express these views it should be here.
Why does this lecture feel like gaslight
The legislative climate changed, the stigma on homosexuality evaporated and homophobia stopped being respectable. In these circumstances it seems plausible to me that more men would consider themselves not entirely 100% straight (c.f.. Kinsey behavioural studies in the 1950s).
As more gays have come out and now we all have openly gay friends and family members, I also think an element of PC creeps into these self identifications. Do the young men questioned feel it would be homophobic to identify as 100% straight? I also wonder if the influence of feminism among peers has exerted pressure on young men to be more critical of masculinity to fit in with the generally feminist mindset of a peer group. There's a lot more data to be gathered on this.
Jonathan Smith defiantly
The questionpart: Find the norweigan :D
I didn't like everything I heard but a tip to the audience is if you don't look at a study of humans with a commitment to morally nihilism and humility you let your own biases get in the way.
YOYOYO mynaem yeah, cause nihilism is the all virtuous trait that will solve all of our problems. And so is globalism. And any other trend that takes away sovereignty of thought and culture. Pffff, that's weak, lazy, trash philosophy masquerading as sophisticated intellect.
You missed my point, I'm not a nihilist and you're not as smart as you think. You have to approach potential truths with a nihilistic attitude. AKA IQ and race/gender, and other topics where people use feelings to guide themselves over facts. That speaker had things I disagree with and things I agreed with, but he had studies and information that unless you want to accuse his authenticity you have to respect because...... wait for it..... facts don't care about your feelings. We accomplished the task of questioning if God was real without the lense of theocracy to tell us questioning it is a sin, why can't his speech be heard without people feeling like he's got a gay ray he will shoot everyone with.(can't wait for you to target the obvious hyperbole and skip the part where I proved you wrong)
YOYOYO mynaem I came to the conclusion that you are nihilistic because you encourage audiences to use a nihilistic lens when scrutinizing what other people say. If you truly are not nihilistic then the communication error was yours and not mine, as the evidence you gave pointed to that conclusion. To make my point clear, nihilism is a terrible life philosophy and a terrible lense for scrutinizing what other people say. Your opinions will change with every "authority" breeze that blows your way. One day a PhD will say one thing and the next another "expert" will say something else. They will both quote studies and research. They may both be wrong, but both cannot be right.
I liked some of what Anderson had to say, however, he seemed unduly dogmatic and inappropriately prognosticative (how does he know that the current stances and feelings of millennial men are "not going to go away"?). Also, I thought he was totally out of line -- and misinformed -- at 40:42. He must know that professional feminist activism has for decades opposed fairness for men in any number of venues. That he denied it, and tried to suggest that there are countless feminists (apparently friends of his), who agree with everything he says and therefore are favorable to mens' rights positions, was astonishing. Has he followed the adventures of Cassie Jay since she started screening the Red Pill? I can only guess that he said what he did at this point because to have said otherwise, or to have seemed to allow the questioner's point, would have been professional suicide for him. I am not sure I trust him.
I’m sorry but kissing another person of the same sex on the lips is not heterosexual that is and always will be relatively homosexual in nature... regardless if your a man or a woman so if that’s what the kids are doing now a days maybe they are confused because ofeminism
Eric has a number of really great points but also softens the message too much. A soft message will not be heard by society.
"Bro-mance"? Wha....?
Right? Lmao
Fucking neotrads. They allowed feminism with their "mah whate Chrystian goldigging wymen r perfect. Men shud get marrraded."
I’m sorry loosing on the lips is not heterosexual that is and always will be relatively homosexual in nature... regardless if your a man or a woman
I got 10 mins in and had to shut it off. This isnt a red pill message. This is a feminist message. He is praising the homosexual/bisexual actions of the indoctrinated young men today as being a step in the right direction for liberating men from the shaming descriptor of homophobe. These boys aren't acting out of masculinity, they are being taught that masculinity is evil, and are shamed for any hint of homophobia, and this new behavior is a result of this indoctrination, not because they are strong, self-respecting red-pill men with personal values. He is basically saying that men dont have to worry about being shamed for acting "no homo", because it is ok now to be homo. This fixes nothing for those straight males who do not want to cuddle and who accurately view such actions as homosexual. This can be witnessed by the fact that even "red pill" men get on here and shame other men for not going along with it. Should homosexuals be shamed? No. But neither should "homophobic" men. That is the message that should have been presented at this conference.
He came out of the closet? If he had the same voice inflections, dress and body movement then as now, everyone already knew. Cuddling with men. I'm done listening.
it depends on the definition he used for cuddle, ive sat on a couch with a friend leaning on me, or my arms on friends shoulders. They didn't have their faces tucked into me or anything that would be too much. So if sitting next to a dude is how he defined it then sure.
That's a shame because he did make some good arguments in general. I didn't subscribe to everything he said either.
ab cd, I was driving and didn't want to bail too soon and miss something the Ear for Men wanted us to hear but it was too much on the gay side. A hand shake is about my limit with male to male contact. Intimacy with women is my liking as long as I've safeguarded my wallet!
The hyperbolic use of the term violence (17:17 and beyond) is something I believe is unhelpful. Pretending as though he’s some valiant warrior by use of further hyperbole (i.e, “gun to your head” 17:52) only leads me to believe this speaker knows very little about masculinity as it relates to warrior culture-an arena in which such elements actually exist.
Want to pretend as though earning an academic degree is equivalent to the function of war? Care to imagine the process of presenting to audiences as being synonymous with fighting battles? Dare to insinuate words are the same as violence?
Leave the academy and attach yourself to a military unit, Eric Anderson. There you will discover how unhelpful hyperbole is when comparing education and feminist rhetoric to violence.
Dishonest, not our friend. His true disrespect for this movement comes out when he attacks the 'extremist' in the audience during q&a for asking a perfectly reasonable question to which we all know the answer.
uh oh this channel is NOT MGTOW--It sounds like a recruiting channel--I will NOT send this channel to my nephew. uuuuugh. (yes I push MGTOW to all the young guys in my family for their survival)
25:15 there's a word for mansplaining that takes the gender out : patronising...
Well, sorry to disappoint you, patronising, from the Latin word pater : the father. There was no time mansplaining wasn't a thing, they just made the misandry more in your face.
"Bull Shit"
What waste of time!
FUCKING DERANGED,FUDGE PACKING SICK FUCKTARDS.A MAN'S COCK WAS NOTTTTTTTT MEANT TO BE PUT WHERE FECAL MATTER EXITS THE DIGESTIVE TRACT!!CIVILIZATION WIIIIIILLLLL FAIL IF BABIES ARE NOT BORN!!!!!😠😠😠😠😠
Whatafag.