"The fact is, the vast majority of the problems facing young men in Ireland and the UK are the same as those facing young women; rising cost of living, precarious work, a shrinking social safety net."
What could possibly cause a housing crisis and work shortage in Ireland? What indeed?
Perhaps the thing that is forbidden to talk about?
As long as the mainstream press evades that question, people will go to Jordan Peterson. Who will also not solve the issues (the Daily Wire was founded by fracking billionaires).
The housing crisis in Ireland was caused by the state allowing the construction industry to die off almost entirely after the financial crisis (likely driven by incorrect projections that assumed that Ireland would return to our traditional pre-90s perma-recession, with the working-age population largely going back to emigrating). Most developed countries kept the construction sector on life support to some extent after the bubble burst, but in Ireland it essentially vanished.
Today, Ireland has the highest rate of housing unit completions per capita per year in the OECD, but it still isn’t enough, because there was a decade where housing completions were, essentially, _zero_ per year.
A secondary factor is a fairly painful planning process; getting planning can take _years_, and is subject to derailment via judicial review. This hits both housing directly, and infrastructure essential to housing. There are currently four major Dublin rail projects in advanced states of planning (DART+ West, DART+ Southwest, DART+ North, Metrolink), which, combined, will more or less double peak-time rail commuting capacity. Metrolink has been dramatically delayed by planning objections, and DART+ West is now under judicial review, and may be, ah, derailed.
At least Mr Peterson will tell them to clean their room, though.
Frankly, I never understood the hate for JP, at least in the things I have seen, he doesn’t seem to be misogynistic or transphobic, the primary things he seems to be accused of?
It seems more like he vocally doesn’t believe in many of the dominant far left paradigms and that got him on the bad list?
Or am I missing something where he displays sexism and bigotry that I just haven’t seen?
Always been a bit curious about that whole situation. Maybe he went off the deep end after what I saw.
It’s worrying that people really don’t understand the appeal of pseudo philosophers like Tate and Jordan Peterson. It’s not the same as gambling. It’s really much more complex than that. Gambling is an irrational, desperate act that takes advantage of magical thinking.
The new “manosphere” exists and is popular because they actually are speaking to and engaging with men. Men have issues and frankly there’s no one (that I know of) on the left who’s giving any kind of antidote or guidance on the problems.
Personally I can’t stand the likes of Tate, simply because they embrace a form of masculinity that I find to be repulsive. But when they speak, I find a direct sense of empathy that’s just completely missing from any other talking head. I also feel the same empathy in many fictional movies like “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)” or “Good Will Hunting.”
The left is afraid to invest in men's issues out of fear of suppressing efforts of uplifting women. It's a fallacy.
To thread this needle, the left can and should frame men's advocacy as a form of women's health issues. Men and women are obviously interdependent... healthy men means healthy women.
Another good first step is acknowledging the biological differences that influence men to behave the way they do (testosterone, being one major factor).. but things like this starts to complicate other ideologies about sex and gender.. it's a mess..
Something that I find funny is that in my experience trans people are often pretty upfront about the biological differences between "men" and "women". After all, many of them have experienced both male and female hormone profiles.
As in, the global left? Whose left are we talking about here? Biological differences are well acknowledged in modern diversity programs, but it's exactly those programs that are now being questioned. A less 'zero sum' view of social progress may be a better way forward, we all lift up one another.
Although if left tried to frame men’s issues as female issues, I personally would be offended.
A better way would be to start with non-controversial male issues (mental help to prevent suicides? homelessness?), and work up from there (equal taxation & riterement, military, equal treatment in family courts, support in domestic violence cases…)
As a side note - I don’t get why left is so afraid of pissing radical feminists off. It’s not like they will begin to vote right wing.
I don’t think the left is afraid of pissing radical feminists off. Also the left already advocates for at least some of the things you mentioned like mental health and homelessness. I don’t think those topics are particularly popular in the “manosphere”.
I think the main problem is the men invested in the manosphere want comforting lies and the left won’t give it to them because in reality it’s much more complicated than what any of the influencers say.
In Poland during the last elections the only party that said anything about men’s issues was a far right party (konfederacja).
From mid-right I wouldn’t expect a thing, and the main mid-left (KO) had first three sections dedicated to women, elderly and children, with men completely missing - in 100 issues they had covered not a single one touched upon the subjects we’re discussing.
> I don’t get why left is so afraid of pissing radical feminists off. It’s not like they will begin to vote right wing.
They're not. Embracing trans people runs completely counter to radical feminism. The left currently subscribes to liberal feminism, not radical feminism.
> They're not. Embracing trans people runs completely counter to radical feminism.
Trans exclusionary radical feminists are a radfem niche; they’re not necessarily the radical feminist mainstream. Note that most people identified by the media as ‘TERFs’ are not; they’re transphobes who may claim to be some sort of feminist, but few subscribe to radical feminism as an ideology (there are a handful of _actual_ TERFs left in the broader modern transphobic movement, though many of them, unsurprisingly, have difficulty with that movement’s dubious bedfellows.)
I think that an additional factor might be the feeling of being part of something. I grew up very conservative and only became progressive later in life. A lot of my friends on the left are shocked when I say that there's a sense in which I miss the sense of purpose, mission, and community that the right provided. Even just watching Fox News there was constant messaging that you're part of the "real Americans" who are fighting back against "the liberals".
I'm very glad that my life experiences opened my eyes and I moved to the left, but that doesn't mean I don't still miss some aspects of being on the right.
There are people on the Left discussing the real root causes of the current societal de-valuation of young men (and everyone else), but "you're a victim of the capitalist raiding of our social coffers by oligarchs, who at the same time tell you it's women's fault to misdirect your anger away from they who are the real reason your job pays as little as it can, and you can't afford a house" requires so much more foundational work to explain than the people blaming women and 'wokeness' have to do.
It also, as you alluded to, doesn't make them out as some direct main-character-esque target of this system, just collateral damage, which doesn't feel like empathy the same way that saying, "you're right, you are being personally attacked. People do hate you as an individual just for who you are." feels like.
Telling someone that they need to stand together and fight the top-down dismantling of our society for profit is also a much larger ask than telling them it's fine to stew in their hate, watch another JBP video on YouTube, and "clean your room".
Rhetoric against easy scapegoats often wins out over truth: it did so in WW2 Germany, and it's well on its way to doing so again here.
There is a strong correlation between success for children and fathers being present. Whereas children raised by mothers only face many additional challenges, children raised primarily by fathers are only minimally disadvantaged compared to children in nuclear families.
So, JP aside, there may be some truth to that analysis.
Hmm. Some of the studies I looked at took income into account, so I’m not sure if I follow your line of reasoning. I don’t doubt that there are external factors that advantage male parents, but income doesn’t seem to be the smoking gun. Children raised by single mothers have more problems in society regardless of their financial security. Especially when it comes to criminality. I’m going to go out on a limb here , but I would wager that the “criminality “ is mostly centered around substance abuse and adjacent factors.
I would be interested in seeing the studies you're referencing. I have not seen any studies that correlate single mothers to increased criminality over single fathers when eliminating economic factors.
This is apparently a narrative that the Right seems to love, built on faulty correlation from the 70s, when divorce rates were increasing along with crime, but was disproven given the later-to-current decrease in violent crime, with no decrease in single motherhood.
Could also be correspondent with reductions in prosecution for minor drug charges, eg marijuana “offenses”. That’s my guess, since as you said, those studies are older. The substance abuse rate is higher for single mother raised children, so a shift in drug use penalization alone could dramatically shift “criminality”.
Anecdotally, I’ve been living in a place for the last 2 decades where single motherhood is the rule rather than the exception, in a matriarchal society. The infantilisation of men is, for my Western European sensibilities, pretty extreme. The men that are accountable and present are definitely the exception to the rule.
The difference in the treatment of children in families with men involved is so dramatically distinct that it is extremely easy to tell if a person comes from a family environment that was heavily influenced by male presence. It’s not a scientific observation, but it is an interesting insight. It’s like there are essentially two parallel cultures. Even the speech patterns are so different as to be easily discernible.
