Men's Liberation

There are fundamentally two conflicting and clashing schools of masculism in society.

One teaches that violence, strength, and destruction are paramount. That responding violently is the answer, and that most problems can be solved with brute force.

The other politely disagrees, and asserts that violence should always be the last possible resort, and every attempt should be made to resolve peacefully, and violence should be only utilized when all avenues have been exhausted. It champions patience, courage, knowledge, tactics, and empathy.

Both have plenty of examples in popular media. I'm sure anyone here can think of tommes of examples of both.

The difference is, almost always the movies in the former category must set up some form of unrealistic, incredibly violent opposing force to justify its own premise. They don't see reason, they only understand violence! Thus the protagonist must Rio and tear and kill every last one if them.

Meanwhile the latter typically focuses on more "human" interactions. The protagonist is often much more relatable and real. He doesn't want anyone to get hurt, and he wants peace and happiness.

Characters like Aang from AtLA, Spiderman, or Luffy from One Piece, all demonstrate that violence only is reserved for when it is the only remaining option, typically self defense or defending others who are weaker.

Meanwhile media like John Whick, Taken, Predator, or Game of Thrones position "unstoppable forces" as the antagonists. They cannot be reasoned with, they won't even consider it. Only violence remains from the very start.

So one has to ask themselves if there are cases of glorifying violence in media, when the protagonist could have resolved the situation peacefully?

I would argue that boys are programmed to believe that men are supposed to be martyrs, which leads to a sense of entitlement over their nonexistent sacrifice. Denial of that entitlement leads to anger, violence, etc.

A bit off topic, but it always bothered me how conservatives clearly have a concept of gender beyond pure biology (being a real man, having certain social rituals required to become a real man, etc.) but just would not admit it. Like dude, who are you kidding?

In the first 30 seconds, Peterson both encourages men to be "competent and dangerous" and says criticizes the young men that commit mass shootings as weak. In the above passage, bell hooks reveals how contradictory that is and how the the need to be competent and dangerous leads to mass shootings. They're the same side of the coin.

Please post suggestions for next week below

This is a textbook example of "Men as a threat" and stereotyping, and is why a lot of boys and men feel lost. You can't find your place in society if society rejects you as a threat.

People are, once again, portraying boys and men as a broken by design and pile on the blame rather than helping them grow.

Boys and men aren't monsters programmed to strike, and they will naturally resent being called such.

You will also immediately lose them as a target audience, and shouldn't be surprised that you've pushed them into the arms of toxic influencers.

It would be unthinkable to make such a sweeping statement about any other group today.