really?

Well, we have had it good for basically the entire course of human history. I personally don’t mind taking a backseat and allowing society to focus on issues affecting women now.

I think at the root of this is just a poor economy. Many of these issues about uselessness or loneliness would be solved by a job and a significant other. But no one's just going to start handing out well paying jobs and girlfriends.

[0] https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guideline...

Yang's redistribution is step 1. You elect the guy who gets the "reasonable" dole in place, and every election after that becomes about who can offer the most money to the people collecting.

Yang is a snake oil salesman and has no solution. His solution is actually step 1 - create a situation where politics becomes about individually promising people money.

What a disaster of a candidate. The only thing that at all makes me feel better is that he's going nowhere.

I mean, the US already has food stamps, medicare, EI, disability... quite the socialist smorgasbord really. I thought you were saying those were 'unreasonable' while UBI was 'reasonable'. What did you mean then?

What is the problem with these guidelines? I didn't see anything particularly controversial or objectionable there, although I did just skim them.

In my experience this leads to going to a therapist and being told you can be anything you want to be, but when you actually try to follow up and get help, no one wants to help you because you're a man.

I can't get it to load on this connection so I can't provide direct citations. Most of what I found objectionable was in the first two pages or so.

I'm guessing you're making the common assumption that the "feminist conception of what is wrong with masculinity" is that masculinity itself is somehow harmful, which is a misinterpretation of the concept of what "toxic masculinity" is - a concept invented by the men's rights movement, and not feminists.

The premise that masculinity could have negative aspects is at the core of common male "codes of conduct" like chivalry and gentlemanly behavior, traditionally enforced by men in order to police their own behavior (and, ironically, to enforce patriarchy.) And it's a premise that men didn't take issue with with until feminists agreed with them.

If you interpret the concepts presented in the guidelines on their face rather than an anti-feminist bias then you would likely find that it isn't actually anti-male or even anti-masculine. Rather it mentions many of the issues that people often insist that society disregards relative to men, such as the life expectancy issue mentioned in the OP.

> It's fine to say you don't owe anyone anything or don't need to impress anyone -- but as a man, if you're not doing those things, no one cares who you are.

In other words... masculinity is an influential aspect of male identity, both personally and socially, and some aspects of the way masculinity is expressed can be harmful, just as any social, political or cultural complex (which masculinity is) can present both positive and negative effects. And it would be helpful for counselors and medical professionals to recognize this and know how to deal with it when necessary.

This suggests to me that the conception of masculinity and what can go wrong with it (as opposed to "what is wrong with it", which again, suggests an often willful misunderstanding the concept) in the guidelines is correct, and that the focus presented on it by those guidelines is in proportion to its likely relevance.

But as we seem to have come to radically different conclusions from this document, we may have to agree to disagree. I didn't read a sexist agenda or a callous disregard for men or men's issues from it, quite the opposite.

So talking about masculinity and "subverting" it is pointless because as a man at the end of the day you are still left without opportunities or companionship because of how other people are evaluating you.

[0] I only ever hear toxic masculinity brought up by feminists, can you really show it has some attachment to the men's rights movement?

The AMA guidelines don't link psychological issues to masculinity, nor are they considering masculinity to be a cause of any issues in and of itself.

>So talking about masculinity and "subverting" it is pointless because as a man at the end of the day you are still left without opportunities or companionship because of how other people are evaluating you.

Nowhere in the AMA guidelines is "subverting" masculinity discussed or considered, either.

You're basing your opinions on a false assumption of what masculinity is assumed to be, and reading an agenda into the AMA guidelines that isn't there.

>can you really show it has some attachment to the men's rights movement?

It's literally mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the term[0], and a quick Google search brings up a few more references[1..3] although I'm guessing your use of the term "really" in italics is meant to leave wiggle room to deny whatever sources I present as being authoritative enough. So take the fact that, if you research the origin of both the term and the concept, you find links to the mens' rights movement and male culture, and no such sources claiming that the term was invented by feminists, as you will.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-mas...

[2]https://thebookofman.com/mind/masculinity/what-is-toxic-masc...

[3]https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/man-victorian-ma...

What is the intended interpretation of your sources? It seems like you just put some random links up. They don't seem to link the creation of toxic masculinity to any movement.

They don't claim that it's irrelevant, nor do I, so we disagree there, and we also disagree that the space given to it is out of proportion to its relevance. They merely don't consider it pathological, and most of the guidelines don't appear to be about masculinity per se, at all.

> It seems like you just put some random links up. They don't seem to link the creation of toxic masculinity to any movement.

From Wikipedia: "The term toxic masculinity originated in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and 1990s.[1]" [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-mas...

From the Atlantic: "Despite the term’s recent popularity among feminists, toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s and ’90s, motivated in part as a reaction to second-wave feminism."

From the book of man: "The phrase can be traced back to a guy called, brilliantly, Shepherd Bliss, who was one of the leaders of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement activist which sprang up in the 80s, and aimed to remythologise men: essentially remove the limited archetypes like “warrior and king” and end biological determinism and hierarchical thinking. Bliss wrote about a return to preindustrial cooperative masculinity, all raising barns and making fires, rather than competitive technological masculinity."

The goodmen project page doesn't make the links the others do, but it does describe the concept as existing as far back as the Victorian era. One can make a reasonable inference from there.