created by TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK on 20/01/2025 at 20:12 UTC
910 upvotes, 9 top-level comments (showing 9)
Comment by Desperate_Object_677 at 20/01/2025 at 20:17 UTC
390 upvotes, 3 direct replies
i think the fascinating thing is the idea that anyone listened to what lower class men had to say or afforded them any dignity at all. what an amazing lie to use to convince a ton of men to act against their own interests. i know this article is about korean men but it’s like.. part of the aether these days.
Comment by TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK at 20/01/2025 at 20:17 UTC
180 upvotes, 4 direct replies
the problem and solution are *right there in front of us*:
Despite high levels of education, young South Korean men face precarious job markets and increasing competition in traditionally male-dominated domains, which has created fertile ground for such beliefs.
in a well-functioning society, there's plenty of scope for everyone to feel secure within themselves. framing resources as scarce *when they're not* frames them as prizes to be won, as *something being taken from you*.
it doesn't matter if you live a good life, you deserve *your birthright*. It's a stressful and unpleasant way to live.
Comment by rorank at 20/01/2025 at 20:36 UTC*
79 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Well it’s not totally incorrect (in America at least). When America was founded, there was one identity class above all in writing: white and male. Then the subtext was, of course, rich and educated. Over the years, we’ve very very slowly clinked away at this structure but never truly addressed the bedrock issue of the very intended inequality that our (and many other) cultures rely upon. When you’re told that it’s your right to have a good life for generations and centuries while other groups are only being able to do things that you never had a barrier to, it will seem as though you’re being lowered when others are being lifted. When you see resources as scarce and you see those around you with those resources that used to be reserved for people like you, you think “why are they taking from me?” When in reality, it was never the people you could see that were taking from you. It’s those who will not put themselves in a situation to be your focus. The unnamed 99% who are in control and know that awareness is the greatest threat to their power over the masses.
If education is only more and more widely available (not taking into account the rising costs of post secondary education, as people are still paying for it in larger and larger numbers) then why is it that wealth is only becoming more concentrated at the top? That cannot be the fault of people who were essentially second class citizens as recently as two generations ago.
Comment by TheIncelInQuestion at 23/01/2025 at 11:16 UTC
9 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The fundamental problem with all these approaches is the ever present and intrinsic assumption men aren't really victims. It poisons the studies, because the researchers have already decided what sort of outcomes they will accept as valid.
The most validity they will accept when it comes to make victimization is that their might be a reason they perceive themselves as victims that isn't just maliciousness.
In reality, men have been programmed to view and express their pain along certain patriarchal values and norms. Their very ability to do things like figure out the "why's" or express the "how's" of their pain has been systemically sabotaged and repressed their entire lives.
It's like men's loneliness being framed as a lack of sex. Sex is the only intimacy men are allowed, and even then it must be performed as an act of Machismo and thus disconnected from their humanity or vulnerability. So when men feel soul crushing loneliness brought on by being deprived of meaningful emotional connection or support their entire lives, they are only allowed to engage with that in relation to sex.
Men's behavior around sex is fundamentally hypersexual, because they are trying to fill an empty heart with sexual pleasure. And that's a cup that has no bottom.
So when men feel this emptiness in their hearts, they blame a lack of sex. Because *society* blames a lack of sex. Even feminists blame a lack of sex, they just try to explain it away as justified because of the orgasm gap or misogyny putting women off. No one actually engages with it for what it is: isolation.
Unironically, this is the real face of misandry. Not man-hating women, or "feminism gone too far", but rather the objectification of men as sex fiends, or power seekers, or violence enjoyers. Patriarchal values for men *do* victimize men. Men have always complained about it, just not in the same way that women do. Which makes sense, their issues look different.
Comment by Ignoth at 20/01/2025 at 23:50 UTC*
64 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Humans evaluate self-worth by comparing themselves to their peers. Not objective reality.
If you’re reading this in a first world country. Chances are y’all are *objectively* doing better than a vast majority of mankind.
…But it doesn’t *feel* like that does it? I bet a lot of y’all feel like underdogs. And are vaguely irritated at the handful of people who have more than you.
That’s the problem here.
You can get $100 for free and be objectively better off than you were before.
…But if everyone else gets $1000 you’re going to feel angry and humiliated. You’ll feel like a “victim” despite the fact that *everyone* is objectively better off.
Comment by Certain_Giraffe3105 at 20/01/2025 at 21:10 UTC
45 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I guess my issue with this argument is that it implies that caring about your "downward social mobility" or perceived "loss of status" are just unreasonable things onto themselves and not because, in the case of young Korean men or perhaps working class white people in America, it leads to a reactionary backlash to minorities and women.
I saw this similar response when some of the first exit polls came out of this past US presidential election where people noted that the majority of voters living in poverty (based on the federal poverty level) voted for Kamala and this proved that any critique of Kamala's policies for helping struggling Americans were null and void. But, this ignored that Trump won the next two income groups (30,000-99,000) and that's the plurality of Americans who vote (48%). And, like it or not you can (and many people are) struggling just making 40,000 or 50,000 dollars a year and yes part of that struggle is worrying that they won't be able to provide their families the quality of life that they had growing up.
Obviously, I don't think Trump will do that for them. And, I also clearly don't think blaming women, minorities, immigrants will help anyone in the States or in South Korea. But, I just can't anymore with these studies that allow people to just affirm their priors and say "Welp they're just sexist (or racist). Their concerns are invalid".
Comment by elizabnthe at 21/01/2025 at 03:04 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Basically this means solving economic situations may not necessarily reduce belief of being hard done by? I certainly think economics allow the ideology to take root at such scale. But it sounds like it's so widely adopted in Korea the economics have since become irrelevant.
Comment by AtomicBlastCandy at 20/01/2025 at 21:28 UTC
5 upvotes, 2 direct replies
When you’re accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression
Comment by Complex_Routine6111 at 21/01/2025 at 11:36 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So male victimhood is based on their loss of privilege and status and not anything else?
Damn when you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression seems true here.