this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
188 points (93.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41643 readers
721 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I think progressives never thought about this because we banked on immigration and demographic change allowing us to win culturally and electorally but the issue is immigrants tend to be overwhelmingly male, that is how Trump won actually he won over a lot of Hispanic,Black,Asian and indigenous men who feel humiliated by a new culture, economy and world.

So what can we do rhetorically and policy wise to win more young men over ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

W-Wait, what is this? A well-thought out, constructive, sympathetic comment? Here? I don't believe it!

Real talk, though: This is an incredibly solid post and I really appreciate you taking the time to actually write all of these points out. It's rare (or, subjectively, it feels rare) to see an admission that a major shift in how this topic is approached is needed, and I feel just a bit more hopeful seeing someone else put in the time to go this deep on it.

I would only make two add-on comments to your points:

  • With regard to point #6, I agree with the concept - but we have to be careful of how we phrase this. Unless it comes with a major effort to utterly restructure our economy in such a way that either a man's value is no longer measured in his ability to be successful in a paid position, and/or we restructure our economy to make success more viable, I fear that efforts to support "working class heros" are doomed to become awkward failures as automation continues to steamroll the viability of those positions.

  • One point I don't see brought up here, though it is touched at in (1) and (8), is that we've got to modulate how we discuss so-called "toxic" behavior. When so many seemingly minor behaviors are met with the same levels of disdain, villainization, and even punishment as things like actual sexual assault, it ends up feeling deeply isolating, undermines the point that is trying to be made, and pushes men towards the worst actors.

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For #6, I don't think we necessarily have to move away from the idea that being a man means being a provider and a protector. At least to me those are some of the core tenants of being a man.

The person above you mentioned the men in Avatar the last Airbender. But I also want to add in the men in LOTR, Gomez Adams, Ted Lasso, Kratos in the newer god of war games, and Steve Rodgers.

These are men who are caring, loving, emotional and they are (mostly) able to show those emotions, capable of growth, and able to admit when they are wrong. But they are still men. Men who struggle with anger, men go to war and protect their families, men who are incredibly strong in the face of struggle, men who sometimes make "inappropriate" (to the left) jokes, and men who strive for nothing else but bettering the lives of those in their care.

I sometimes hate that what counts as "positive masculinity" is really just feminity but dressed up in a blue bow. Men are not women and telling them that they can't be super competitive, can't be angry, and can't fail is just setting them up to fall into toxic masculinity. This might just be me talking about the culture I was raised in but those things aren't necessarily a bad thing, and erasing what a "man" has been for generations isn't going to win you any extra fans.

[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Sorry, I think maybe my point was misunderstood. Trust me, I'm in full agreement with you: Like the comment I was responding to was saying, trying to simply frame "positive" masculinity in terms of feminine traits doesn't seem like a good idea. There needs to be a positive reference for actually masculine role models and ideals.

Like, literally everything you said is something I totally agree with.

My concern is that, specifically, initiatives which idealize working-class providers and fail to recognize the way automation and computerization have significantly flattened the jobs market (especially well-paying, working-class jobs), are intrinsically doomed because we don't have an economy which widely supports men acting as supporters for a family. If we idealize a working provider but simultaneously leave things in a state where a man can't provide for his family, what I fear we're actually left with is swaths of men feeling unfulfilled and angry at those in charge for bringing them to this point.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it!

I kinda agree on your points. I feel that working class heros could make a comeback if done well, though.

Hell ideally I'd like to see more historical stuff based on labor history, Blair Mountain was crazy and could totally be an action movie.