Technology

I understand your thoughts experiment, and I assure you that I am not assuming that this thought comes from a place of malice. The second thing is that I would be using an LLM model to fix my grammar, so it might sound like an LLM response, and my word choice might not be as precise as native ones.

I want you to understand that my comment wasn't in contrast to women but to society. Helping women isn't coming from goodwill or a soft spot but as a means to an end. What end? Exercising soft power for powerful people¹, brownie points for PR², and more consumers for capitalism.³

1. Saving women and children is still shown as a positive attribute, not as some general attribute. The thing is, people doing this are well aware of that. Recently, when Trump blocked the USAIDs and some other beneficiaries that helped victim groups, a lot of people who championed feminism and the welfare of the weak straight up on camera started babbling about how the USA will lose its soft power in other countries. You can call me naive, but it baffled me. You don't have to pretend that there is no soft power, but at least keep people's welfare as the central piece of your argument or concerns.

2. Brownie points: Saving women or appearing to work for helping women is used for PR by political figures, corporations, and people who want to be at the center of attention. Though recently, this one isn't going very well because, due to the internet and the large availability of information, it is very easy to check for credibility. However, there is still enough bias that can be exploited.

3. How can I explain this one? Think about it: you don't want half of your customers locked away and banished when you can sell them consumerism as rebellion (the search for cigarettes as feminism).

If you paid attention, all these three situations are beneficial only as long as women are presented as victims or oppressed. Since there is no David without Goliath, we get men as the oppressor or ultimate evil.

Capitalism can appease men to promote consumerism wrapped in misogyny. Corporations can capitalize on women's loneliness and low self-worth.

Patriarchy can use women to portray the ultimate evil.

No, these both can't be promoted to the same extreme, as it will lead to people resorting to gender roles while expecting others not to, creating extremely competitive conditions for men, as the patriarchy will push the gender role of men asking out, taking financial responsibility, etc. If we assume misogyny is high too, they will soon check out of the dating scene, leading to a fall in the birth rate, which isn't too great for capitalism. We have a whole country as an example of why capitalism's incentives don't lie with promoting misogyny; can you guess that country? :::Yes, it is South Korea.:::

For capitalism to thrive, it needs just enough modulated patriarchy and misogyny where men remain competitive with each other, and even those who give up remain consumers in the form of some consumerism addiction. If misogyny and patriarchy are promoted enough and spiral out of control, people will check out of society.

I have noticed that women with low self-worth find meaning in work, which ultimately profits corporations. The money they earn will be spent on consumerism/addictions, which again can be profited by capitalism and corporations.

I can't comment on this, as it was anecdotal from my side, and this can be anecdotal from your side.

The rich can have as many resources as they want, so why solve it? Other than individuals (women) taking matters into their own hands and rescuing each other, I don't think there is enough incentive to help women as a community or as a whole.

You are completely wrong on this one. The divide is very important. If they (the rich and powerful) let go of this illusion of helping women or the underprivileged or making it all appear as meritocracy, it will turn into rich vs. poor, and this has never worked in favor of the rich. To maintain this illusion or facade that they are not the perpetrators of the current worsening of society, they need bogeymen, which, of course, we know who they are, and make them appear as saviors they need victim too, and we are back to square one.

You know what is ironic? This portrayal of bogeymen and its consequences isn't backfiring on the rich and powerful but is becoming a tool to exchange power between different factions of the same wealthy individuals.

Eh. Nothin' to lose.

What are men’s problems? What problem do we suffer that also doesn’t affect women?

Women have strong support movement on their side. It's not something they gain only through their sex, but rather something they gain I think mostly due to the same gender stereotypes that also act against them.

Same stereotypes which isolate men and make them suffer in silence and alone, making showing any sign of weakness a fatal mistake.

Isn’t that what you are doing to feminist right now? Isn’t that what the article is talking about with the man-o-sphere?

I honestly don't see your point here - what commenter above you said is right, and sure as hell they didn't mention that it doesn't work the other way around.

Lol, like we men are immune from corporations promoting masculinity? Old spice, axe body spray, every sports based commercial… What gender do you think the majority of the CEO for these companies are?

What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity. Also, as far as I understand it, what you quoted above this part is just continuation of the point above it, nothing to add here.

Capitalism isn’t a fucking gender problem…it is the thing making everyone’s lives miserable. If we wanted to examine gender in capitalism we can take a look at which of the genders gains more from the system. What percent of the oligarchs are men, how many billionaires are men, how many senators and judges that keep the system going… it’s mostly dudes.

Yeah, but affects genders differently. Men are eaten, ground to a paste and then spat out. Women are bellitled and their work is seen as substandard. One side doesn't make the other any less, both are problems and commenter above you didn't say men have it worse, just that they suffer from it.

And the rich switch genders or something? Women can’t be part of the struggle against capitalism? What is wrong with you guys, do you not have mothers, sisters, women in your lives who are just friends?

What commenter above you is alluding to is the point of the whole post - Men do not get help. We do not have the same societal networks that women have to get together and stand up. And even if women decided to fight for us, it's for naught until we are able to start getting up by ourselves.

Young white men are being squeezed out of the ownership class for the first time and it’s because it’s the only demographic that hasn’t already been squeezed at this late stage of capitalism. The problem isn’t with women, it is the economic system that dangles a carrot for some, so they’ll wield the stick against others…and we’re all out of carrots. Welcome to the party, everyone else has been getting the stick the whole fucking time.

'kay. What's with that obsession with women? Commenter above you mentioned once that feminism can use men to portray them as evil, which they do because guess who makes them suffer most, and yet due to that you immediately went and threw everything they said as if they did nothing else but accuse women of men's suffering.

All in all, as far as I understand the comment above you, all boils down to:

• Women gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
• Corporations gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
• Rich gain, and even if not then loose nothing on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.

Which are answers to question at the beggining:

Is there even an incentive for solving men’s problems?

IMO, the incentive is for us to move our asses, take notes from women and build our own support networks. But that is actually fought against by conservatists/right-wingers, because lonely and lost men make cheap and easily influenced canon fodder.

Thank you for making sense!

Mate, what many of those so-called gururs of "manosphere" do is called capitalising on misery of others, not solving. Which I have already covered in my comment above.

Incentives don't always have to be of commercial value; they can also be moral and assumed.

You don't usually receive commercial value for rescuing an animal, helping a child, or sheltering a woman. What I am saying is, why can't we offer the same moral incentive to men? They are often portrayed as oppressors, and more value can be extracted from the "oppressor bogeyman" than from actually addressing and solving the problems.

What you are describing is not solving the problem; it is, at best, putting the problem under the rug, or at worst, getting rid of the problem altogether.

I just want to point out, men are not by default worth less.

Women are the big spenders online.