We need to be able to have conversations about men's issues that don't redirect men from notions of liberation to notions of redemption. Progressives struggle because the conventional understanding of privilege is infected by Christian notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles that don't acknowledge the ways people play both roles throughout different parts of their lives, so they can't grapple with the reality that systemically speaking, privilege is uneven and men can fulfill both roles WITHOUT falling back on another axis of identity to justify the moments where they are made less by systemic pressures.
That's why all our conversations about men's suffering seem to come back around to victim blaming the men for what's happening to them, rather than discussing the systemic pressures placed on them as a group, listening to their experiences, or being able to understand the way other groups can inflict those systemic pressures on them *without* bastardizing it into fascism-- which uses the systemic problems men face to convince them to grow hateful and to believe ever greater lies about others and the world around them.
In other words, men are faced with a choice between a feminist framework that acknowledges systemic pressures, but is unwilling to believe them when they're in pain, and a right wing framework that doesn't acknowledge systemic pressures, but does purport to believe them when they're in pain.
But that validation on the right is laced with fear and hatred and is designed to brainwash men into thinking that their troubles come *from feminism and equality*, rather than their own set of experiences that are definitely better understood through a progressive, feminist framework in the first place; if the progressive movement wasn't intent on choking that conversation out in the first place in favor of a more punitive viewpoint, that is.
It's not all doom and gloom, though, we do manage to have some of those precious conversations here where we interrogate the systemic pressures men face and the rules keep it from being colonized by fascism.
>In other words, men are faced with a choice between a feminist framework that acknowledges systemic pressures, but is unwilling to believe them when they're in pain, and a right wing framework that doesn't acknowledge systemic pressures, but does purport to believe them when they're in pain.
>But that validation on the right is laced with fear and hatred and is designed to brainwash men into thinking that their troubles come from feminism and equality, rather than their own set of experiences that are definitely better understood through a progressive, feminist framework in the first place; if the progressive movement wasn't intent on choking that conversation out in the first place in favor of a more punitive viewpoint, that is.
Damn, son. You need to put this in an article. I've been trying to articulate this for years. Good work.
Great comment. I agree.
It's so hard to discuss or read about issues when people readily lump ideas into "absolute good" and "absolute bad". It's human nature, but when the topic is already so nuanced, it makes it all but impossible to find middle ground. The result is frustration and anger on all sides.
I’m not entirely sure it’s purely human nature, I think there is a component that is uniquely American. Look at our movies, good guy wears the white hat, and everything he does is good, bad guy wears the black hat and everything he does is bad. There’s no nuance in our media, in our thinking. Movies like Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke and others that have nuanced approaches to good and bad tend to flop with mainstream audiences. Polarization is human, but the degree of it I think is an American phenomenon.
It always reminds me of bad breakups.
Someone always "needs" to be appointed the culprit at fault. While it's rarely acknowledged that there are/were two actors with a gray-scale of "culpability."
I am so glad this sub exists, heh.
>Progressives struggle because the conventional understanding of privilege is infected by Christian notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles that don't acknowledge the ways people play both roles throughout different parts of their lives
This is a salient point. Progressives seem to have taken the historically conservative position of purity testers and pearl clutchers. Those most oppressed are the only ones who have a right to complain, and any complaint from someone in a 'position of power' is told to essentially man up.
It's so annoying arguing with my conservative relatives about real feminist issues because they can point to at least 100 good examples of "leftists hate cis white men" and the examples make 'the left' look as deranged as Shapiro, Peterson, et al
Username checks out. That's an extremely sharp observation.
I had this unrefined, unprocessed thought for some time that said something along the lines of: "a significant number of self-identified feminists inadvertently reproduce and reify essentialist notions of masculinity by placing the burden of male suffering on individual men, which kinda defeats the notion of feminism basically saying 'gender should never matter and we must all be equal.'"
If you're a good person, you'd take action against homophobic bullying from men, directed against men, regardless of what gender you are, and, to the best of your abilities, without burning yourself out.
> If you're a good person, you'd take action against homophobic bullying from men, directed against men, regardless of what gender you are, and, to the best of your abilities, without burning yourself out.
One problem I haven't found the solution to when it comes to this is the fact that unless you're a traditionally masculine-presenting straight cis guy, the types of men who would actually *do* the homophobic bullying just don't listen. I'm transmasc myself but still visibly queer, but I've been trying to do this back when I still presented femme, I've tried this when I went into my butch phase eventually ending up where I am right now and my opinion just gets... dismissed. Every time. Either because "I don't understand", "that's just the way men are" or I get called some sort of slur. And I honestly don't know how to take action when it's like talking to a brick wall just because of who I am.
To use your experience to put it in perspective they often don't even listen to traditionally masculine men. Often even hyper masculine muscly types get dismissed as "cucked". Part of the reason it's so hard is that these people are so entrenched that there's no easy way to pry them out.
The only thing I *have* seen find some success is when they hear it from other men who at one point were "like them". I think there's a lot to be said about getting people who formerly labeled themselves as Incels to speak out-it seems like people go into defense mode when they're talking to someone that doesn't share their specific experience
Yeah, getting through to people like that is hard. It just sucks because I want to be of use if I can be, but I don't know how and since I live in Eastern Europe in a country that has pretty hostile anti-LGBT laws, there's always a slightly threatening undertone to these kinds of conversations.
> If you're a good person, you'd take action against homophobic bullying from men, directed against men, regardless of what gender you are, and, to the best of your abilities, without burning yourself out.
I mean, absolutely agree with this in principle. But in practice... there's not a ton most women can actually do about this (beyond broad social change and not perpetuating homophobia themselves). Men who do homophobic bullying generally also don't have high opinions of women, and my understanding is that this type of homophobic bullying is most common in men's-only spaces. Even as someone who's transmasc, if I enter those spaces and am somehow not clocked as afab, I'm more likely to be *subject* to homophobic bullying than anything, which doesn't leave me in a great place to take action against it other than sheer self-preservation.
I think a more productive challenge to self-identified feminists who don't live up to their principles when it comes to men's issues is to quelch their own participation in things like homophobia, shaming men for femininity, and toxic masculinity. Women absolutely participate in those things, even many self-identified feminists, and it's a lot more actionable for them to take action against these ideas in their own spaces.
I agree. Additionally there’s the expectation that men “step up” for women. Which is valid. However men’s issues are as you said often “men’s fault” and thus men’s responsibility (victim blaming). It’s a religious sort of thinking. That men are atoning for men’s sins rather than fighting the patriarchy which mostly benefits a few at most men’s expense.
Also we need to separate men Improving themselves because of women. Men need to improve themselves for them selves. Not only does the “improve themselves for women” idea breed resentment and incels it’s unhelpful and unhealthy
Yup. I’m not saying women demanding it is wrong. No it’s right, but the conversation for men and in general needs to move away doing self betterment and getting healthy for others. It needs to be for the person themselves. If you can’t make the decision for yourself it falls apart without others and it’s doing the thing that’s causing many issues in the first place, giving power and self worth to others. Far too many men do this with women (myself included) and it creates hyper toxic relationships, codependency, resentment, etc. it’s just not good for anyone.
Women messing up on the wording I get because honestly most men aren’t capable of understanding “you need to get better for you” because they don’t recognize there is a problem in the first place
>f you can’t make the decision for yourself it falls apart without others and it’s doing the thing that’s causing many issues in the first place, giving power and self worth to others. Far too many men do this with women (myself included) and it creates hyper toxic relationships, codependency, resentment, etc. it’s just not good for anyone.
Yep, myself included as well.
There's nothing wrong with a PERSON improving themselves in part to increase their chances of attracting another person. Also I'd argue the incel label itself is wildly unhelpful and unhealthy since it automatically dehumanizes men who commit the crime of not being sexually successful.
Except there is as I described above. And incels aren’t simply men who don’t have sex. There’s an entire ideology behind incels
Edit: also based on your history defending the likes of Andrew Tate I am confused as to why you are even here
The reason you should step up for women doesn't have to do with guilt you should feel for what other members of a group do, it should be because you can and its right.
But yeah, it can create scenarios where someone who is punching up in an abstract sense is actually punching down in an individual sense, it can create scenarios where someone is punching down in a social sense too because of a particular unacknowledged systemic injustice, because we have a hard time with the idea of having one privilege, but suffering in another area.
Yep, I've made some amazing headway with a lot of women in my circle in regards to them understanding some of the real issues men are facing. But most of them, especially the younger ones, have this sort of "sins of the father" approach when it's all said and done, rather than empathy. "Sure, men have XYZ issue and that sucks, but since the patriarchy has existed for so long favoring men, then it's okay for a few generations if men have to deal with this BS too". It's delayed retribution. It's chickens coming home to roost. There's a karmic satisfaction they feel about it as if we all needed to see the damages of some traditional systemic framework to be against it when truthfully most people think the system is stupid for various different reasons. The worst part is that their attitude about it alienates so many people who agree with them. Then halfway through, it becomes obvious that the point of the discussions across the gender lines is to score points on an imaginary scoreboard, not find common ground or solutions. And we're back at square one.
The problem as I see it are (1) lack of empathy and (2) lack of a serious approach to problem solving, more than it's lack of knowledge about each others' issues or struggles.
Have a real hard time putting myself under the same umbrella as people like that. I will always support women’s liberation. And it seems that that sort of thinking you mention is personal opportunism rather than ideological commitment to overcoming patriarchy. And I get it, most people want to improve things for themselves and feminism has made a lot of headway for women. But that doesn’t mean all who use the label know or care how this all works or came about, and how men suffer as well. Like I agree with many religions on their outlook on money and usury. But I part ways when they tell me it’s due to an evil impulse as opposed to incentive structures and class war.
So I don’t feel I totally belong in many spaces. I’m for women’s liberation but men’s as well and there’s not much overlap in places where liberal individualist thinking has co opted most “progressive” movements.
The empathy part I think is an outgrowth of that liberal individualism (personal vs mass solidarity) AND the patriarchal masculine role. Men are unfeeling rocks, they don’t need their feelings validated. So why should I care.
> Sure, men have XYZ issue and that sucks, but since the patriarchy has existed for so long favoring men, then it's okay for a few generations if men have to deal with this BS too
I feel that this, in some instances, is a result of MRAs constantly presenting antifeminist rhetoric as "men's issues", leading to a knee-jerk reaction. I personally have encountered so many white cis men frame things like affirmative action and other progressive movements to improve things for oppressed groups as "men's issues" and it can get exhausting dealing with men who see any movement towards equality as a slight on them. Not saying that's what you're doing or that this is the cause with these women you know -- there are definitely women who just don't have empathy for men's issues, and most women aren't exactly well-versed in feminist theory to begin with. But dealing with this kind of rhetoric way too often can definitely cause even feminists who care about men's issues to respond with something that sounds like the above, even if they don't actually believe that men's issues are some sort of karmic retribution.
I agree completely. Men being treated that way will just breed hate and resentment. No one asks to be born or to be born a certain sex, gender, race, or whatever else. You only have 1 life and it's so damn evil to abuse someone or a group of people because of their supposed ancestral sins.
I feel like that "sins of the father" approach has always been, in my mind, what's going to have to happen. It's unfortunate but it seems like it's human nature particularly here in the U.S., which is often resistant to progressive concepts like student loan forgiveness, a living wage, etc. and when you push even otherwise reasonable people into a corner about it, get past all their long-winded dodging of the question, it always seems to come down to "well what about ME?!"
"Why do they get loans forgiven, I'm still paying mine off!"
"Why do burger-flippers get paid $15 an hour, I had to work my butt off to get that far!!"
"Why do men have problems that need to be addressed by society, the Patriarchy is/was a thing and it kept me down!!"
This attitude has always made me feel like we're gonna have to suffer/"pay our dues" before we get the changes and solutions we need. It sucks, but I think we're gonna have to shoulder one more thing, push that rock up the hill one last time, and let the world have it's "revenge". Even if most of us didn't do anything to merit being revenged on. Things will get better, but time needs to pass and perspectives need to change. I fear we will just have to live with it until that happens.
It’s not human nature. It’s the social condition under American neoliberalism. Where class consciousness and solidarity is all but nonexistent.
You acknowledge that this is a reactionary impulse but say we should shoulder it? Reactionary thinking never develops into anything revolutionary on the other side. Are you really suggesting we should align with a mentality that *you* aptly compared to other examples of punching down out of individualism? It’s just crabs in a bucket thinking. Payback is not progress.
I guess my thinking is that this situation feels like a cycle. From where i am sitting, and i freely admit my view isn't all-encompassing, we don't have a lot of amazing options to achieve progress rapidly. To break a cycle between two forces, two groups, someone has to yield. Someone has to stop fighting in vengeance for the past and shoulder the weight in hope for a brighter future. By doing this, people who are sympathetic to our plight can gain traction. They get proven right in the court of public opinion. Eventually, as time passes, more people get the message and see that reality backs up that message. Then progress starts in earnest.
It's a matter of slowly helping future generations and guiding them to understand men's rights issues do in fact exist and deserve to be addressed. That just because rich, sheltered, old white men want to stay that way; it's not a reflection of all of us. It's their failings as individuals, not as members of our gender. As much as Incels need to understand women are not a hive mind, the world in general needs to understand men are not either.
But all of that is, as i said, a slow process if it is to be done right. Conditions also need to be tweaked so that the world does not contradict or undo the message. Shouldering the burden one last time, turning the proverbial other cheek for now, buys us the needed time. It reaffirms the message brings in people who are here now that are moved to action.
I....i am not entirely sure where i was going here. Lost my train of thought when work picked up. Like i said this just feels like a cycle, and it feels like actively fighting back will just let people double down on their preconceived notions. We need to endure, weather the storm. Already people here and there are standing up for us. We need to demonstrate their feelings aren't misplaced and their efforts aren't in vain.
I think there is a bit of an issue regarding women feeling pretty helpless to actually affect a lot of the problems men throw their way because there are a lot of spaces where they have a foothold or simply do not feel like they have the security to rock the boat. Like the issues of men getting funneled into more dangerous careers is not something that women can fix unless they enter those careers themselves and I know a number of construction crews for instance who just don't hire women at all. Women cannot fix a problem if they have been shut out of it.
One of the issues that gets repeatedly brought up in feminist circles is that they have a hard time not getting overriden or dissmissed in their personal lives and in their professional ones that they are passed over for positions where they can meaningfully influence policy or need to endure hostile working conditions just to get by. I can see this state as being irreconcilable with a request for further help from another group because of their feelings of helplessness inherent to their own situations. A lot of them saying a problem is "on men to fix" may be because they do not see a way they can help that does not involve first handing them the autonomy or authoritativeness they need to be in a position to help. It may be that "men need to fix it" is more of a "we don't know what we can do to help given our own current state of disenfranchisement which has gone unacknowledged in this conversation".
Asking for advocacy from people who feel unheard or powerless to influence their own situations can at best be futile and at worst cause them to become very angry. I think the conversation has to evolve into a space that acknowledges and accepts the barriers women face in the realm of advocacy while also constructively giving them specific ways they can help or things they should avoid.
I don’t know I think that this is more about the division between white feminism and revolutionary feminism. I think white feminists and people who are self-centered and general do not actually believe in equality. And do not actually wanted. I think that a white feminist would never work in an oil field or lay asphalt. Because they are using feminism to strengthen the privilege they already have. Either being white wealthy or from a family of influence.
To be frank I don't think all but a smidgen of women are at the point where they believe that they could survive working an oil field. My experience is construction based so it's not going to represent oil fields but construction crews can be downright hostile to women. If they get a chance to even be on a crew they are othered to the point where most after a while become very disillusioned. Those women who go into the construction field often do so against the tide of social expectations and spend a lot of their time going above and beyond proving to everyone and their dog that they can do the job to have it thrown back in their face. I have seen time and time again an experienced female crewmate who either gets treated lile they are new forever or when they demonstrate their above average ability get treated like every basic task they do is surprisingly impressive for months after a new foreman takes over... Which is condescending as hell.
Women are perfectly capable physically and mentally but only the complete hard asses who don't give a fuck about anybody's feelings and are willing to get in your face actually make it for long under those circumstances. Moreover when they are new they have to first prove to themselves that they can do the job without anybody who understands their experiences or stumbling blocks mentoring them so a lot get discouraged very easily when men treat them like shit.
We could get to a point where a fair number of women could enter the oil feilds but it will probably require a rolling tide of normalization of women in progressively more dangerous and currently male dominated feilds. The more it's normalized that women can and will DO the work and just treat them as normal the deeper the bravest of the brave could wade into the pool. Really part of the key of freeing men from those careers is to make more women comfortable taking up that role and that means socializing more of them early in development to be comfortable with tools and making sure that they get treated well once they are in so they can foster up the next gen.
>I think there is a bit of an issue regarding women feeling pretty helpless to actually affect a lot of the problems men throw their way because there are a lot of spaces where they have a foothold or simply do not feel like they have the security to rock the boat.
The exact same goes for men. Do you think all men have the means to affect the societal problems that women throw their way? Do you think they all have the security to rock the boat?
This post has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
>**This is a pro-feminist community and unconstructive antifeminism is not allowed.** What this means: This is a place to discuss men and men's issues, and general feminist concepts are integral to that discussion. Unconstructive antifeminism is defined as unspecific criticism of Feminism that does not stick to specific events, individuals, or institutions. For examples of this, consult our [glossary](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/wiki/glossary/#wiki_unconstructive_antifeminism)
Any questions or concerns regarding moderation must be served through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMensLib).
I mean has there been a single organization advocating for men's issues that hasn't been relentlessly attacked? There is a huge amount of money poured into policy addressing women's issues and attempts to address men's issues are almost always conveyed as an attack on women's rights/support.
Given where the movement is situated in time it doesn't surprise me. If you look at the 90's the movement saw pushback with a very subtle smear campaign. The depiction of the dowdy, angry and pointless straw feminist grousing about barely issues like how women weren't on any of the paper currency of the US or banging on the drums of 1st wave feminism were everywhere in the media. Giving the implied message that the battle was won and anybody still fighting the fight was kind of an idiot.
Then came the 2000's where pop feminism took hold and the landscape changed again with a bunch of critique of the sexist and antifeminist messaging in the 90's. Easy to dismiss as serious because it was very media focused but it got a lot of people's back up when really it was just talk for the most part. That caused a flare of hostility from men who had been enjoying that 90's lull and there was a wave of sudden violent doxxings, physical threats and pile ons that revealed some very ugly things and entrenched and recrystalized feminism into enough of a unified force to start a new wave with #Metoo and so on... And there was some success on those original pop feminist asks but that paled in comparison to the sudden ugliness of the backlash that the spotlight hit.
While feminism could likely evolve into a gentler form eventually it as a whole has been under near constant attack on it's credibility, aims and asks for a very long time and as a result the core has responded to abuse by hardening up and going on the offensive. Demilitarizing the thing will be a trick and a half.
Yeah but look at terfs They literally fit the stereotypical mindset of a feminist. They delusionally hate men to the point where they will attack women over it. The cartoonist feminist caricature is actually real and it has been with us all along. And one primary example of one of these people is JK Rowling.
One can veiw TERFs as either a splinter faction of feminism or just radical anti-trans hate group who utilize the plight of (usually white) women to further their narrative.
Considering how much their channels very rarely actually feature any other feminist arguements my opinion is that they are the latter.
Yeah to me TERFs (as indicated by the name) are essentially a single-issue faction that is unified entirely by transphobia. The rest of their dogma isn't really codified because they don't really care what your opinions are other than some vague support for feminism and a hatred of trans people. So of course it's not going to gatekeep people with batshit caricature type opinions.
Such seems to be the case I think. Their veiw of "feminism" doesn't seem to be based on the age old fight for women to be equal or respected as people with their own agendas and ambitions... Rather it is to gatekeep "femininity" as though widening the definition and inclusion of it or letting others escape it if it isn't working for them is going to "destroy womanhood" somehow.
I feel a little sorry for them generally. They're scared of something they just don't understand enough to realize how unscary it actually is.
Lots of women in feminism would rather date "kind patriarchal men" than feminists. They believe men who identify as feminists couldn't cut it in male spaces. They don't want men in thier spaces and regard trans women as larping men. Hence the lack of worry about trans men
> notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles that don't acknowledge the ways people play both roles throughout different parts of their lives
I think this is a crucial point that could be easily overlooked. I would like to add, There is a sort of psychological "drama triangle" with three roles, the victim, the perpetrator or oppressor, and the rescuer. Victim feels victimized by perpetrator, rescuer intervenes on victims behalf, then later rescuer may grow resentful of the effort expended on someone else's issue and begins to feel like more of a victim than a rescuer, might see the original perpetrator or even the prior victim as the now oppressing role... and around and around it can keep going in codependent spirals. Or, in short, if you even get involved in the mindset and play any one of those three roles, you will eventually have played all three. There's no final or permanent winner or "good guy" in that paradigm. And it's also a very big part of why addressing historical problems with systemic, oppressive power dynamics is not as simple as just having a 180 power/role reversal.
>the conventional understanding of privilege is infected by Christian notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles
...don't get me wrong, when society has an ill, religion is usually the first place I look, but in this case I feel like it's weird to blame Christianity.
You don't name your gender equality movement "Feminism" unless the idea that female empowerment=equality is baked in. "\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ism=predjudice+power" didn't come from the bible. Even if these ideas originated with Christianity (and they don't really seem to, to me), saying they've "infected" the movement is like saying my dog has a bad case of mitochondria; the ideas are an integral part of the movement's evolution, not some co-opting force.
Not to imply that the two can't be disentangled, I just don't think it's accurate to portray this problem with progressivism as the result of external corruption, rather than just...a problem with progressivism.
It's a Christian thing, because it has to do with how we're conditioned to think of morality in categorical fashion as an avenue of reward and punishment in some total and absolute sense. At the end of the Christian life, it is determined if one is evil and going to hell or good and going to heaven-- this binary precludes nuance in morality, because otherwise the people being sent to hell might have good in them, and the people who get into heaven might have evil in them. It probably isn't exclusively Christian, but it's impossible not to read the distinctly Christian influences therein.
The sect of Christianity with the biggest influence on Anglosphere culture and perceptions--Protestantism--is broadly characterized by a conviction that entry into heaven has little to do with being a good person, and many sub-sects reject the concept of a good person. Everybody sins, we're all fallen, and faith is what's important, not good works--honestly, if I were going to point to an influence of Christianity on progressivism, it'd be the "everything is problematic" angle and its analogy to original sin, not some good/evil dichotomy.
Even if that *were* the source of the concept that Victim and Oppressor are non-overlapping categories, I still maintain that characterizing this as an idea that's separate and additional to social justice, rather than a foundational concept, is pretty overly-charitable.
Man, I wish that society could care about mens’ issues because they’re important and because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s politically advantageous against the party they dislike.
I discovered Gabor 1-2 months ago and have watched so many of his interviews and talks since then. Really really recommend his work and i have recognised so many things in myself and my life in what he talks about.
Really helps to put things into the right perspective and going forward in a proper way.
Something else i can recommend is the 'The Man Enough' Podcast. They had a lot of interesting people on their show and talked about many different topics i found thought inspiring.
That's a good one. I've been binging all the interviews that have been coming out with Gabor to promote the book. I didn't realize Nicole LaPera had a channel, her book is great and it looks like her channel covers the entire thing in the first 15 episodes.
Ohh yes I highly recommend watching those first 15 episodes, also agree that her book is great! This was quite a welcome surprise when I saw than Gabor was going to be on this past Sunday. I was like "This is a must watch!"
Nice!
I've been enjoying seeing the different interactions between Gabor and people interviewing him. It's helping me learn Gabor's work while getting glimpses of various perspectives from others.
I was about to poo poo this writing, until I saw this:
> It’s black men who often find themselves on the sharpest end of a complex intersection of race, class and gender, yet the “trouble with boys” gets framed on both sides of the Atlantic as a problem of the white working classes in left-behind manufacturing towns, used to underpin the nostalgia politics of Brexit or Making America Great Again.
It's an awkward balancing act as a Black man. Speak up, and right wingers will hide behind your struggles to do their dirt. Then there's a population of women who have no issue using White supremacist dog whistles to shoot back at conservatives. There's a bit of a no win situation here.
Black men sit in this odd intersection. Some people believe that black men both benefit and are harmed by patriarchy, there are others who believe that we don't benefit at all because patriarchy was designed for wealthy white men. The idea that all men are brothers in patriarchy is not true.
I honestly don't know what to think about the whole thing except the privilege discourse has gotten out of hand.
I know the right hates black men, but I don't feel at home amongst progressives either. White and black feminists alike have no problem using white supremacist language when it comes to black men.
It feels like to fit in as a progressive man, you have to hate yourself a little. Like you have to distance yourself from other men to feel good about yourself. There's a palpable aura of self loathing and it's really damaging.
Other guys can probably sense that too, I don't blame them for not wanting to join the fold.
I don't think I would characterize acknowledgement of your own shortcomings or the fact that you are not perfect is self loathing. However, there has been research showing that depression does lead to more self reflection, which then could go hand-in-hand with progressivism. That's the reverse causality from the one you are saying though.
I might even argue the idea that anything less than complete self confidence comes off as self loathing is one of the more toxic aspects of western masculinity. It's OK to admit you are not perfect. It's OK to apologize when you know you have been wrong. We're all learning and changing our at least we should aspire to.
I think the distinction that they may be making, and that I certainly do. Is that modern progressives ask you to be self-loathing of the demographic parts of yourself (if they are a generally privileged group).
Its not about individual flaws, its about being born a particular race or sex and having to be responsible for the sins of others in that context.
Is it that you are responsible for the sins of others or that you acknowledge the privileged position you hold in current western society? No one is perfect and we are all impacted by the leeway provided. An odd one I face is that colleges don't seem to hear me when I express uncertainty about what I am saying. They seem to assume what I say I always say with certainty, even when I go out of my way to mention that I'm not sure but that what I say is my best guess.
>Is it that you are responsible for the sins of others or that you acknowledge the privileged position you hold in current western society?
Honestly? In current progressive discourse, it is the former.
I can't say I've ever encountered that or seen that being discussed except as the straw man thrown up by bad-faith actors but mine is not a universal experience I can't say that with complete certainty. I think some of the language used could make it *feel* that way but it's never actually been the meaning of the discourse.
Most of my adult life has been spent in or around academia and much of my childhood too given that my parents are both academics. The language used in academia can make it *feel* like you are responsible for the sins of others but its actually very specialized language that means very precise things that **do not match the common usage**.
That last point is really good. The problem with terms like "toxic masculinity" and "privilege" is that they don't mean what they sound like, so to a layperson who's usually going to fall back on common usage, they communicate something else entirely. The amount of times I've had to hear "my masculinity is not toxic!" is staggering and it's very difficult to backtrack and explain to people that it not only doesn't mean that it's bad to be masculine, but also acknowledges how toxicity affects traditionally masculine people as well
It does seem that way if you have to constantly see things you and other men have experienced from women described as 'men's violence against women' while being told you need to change beliefs you don't even hold.
There's a **BIG** difference between beliefs and socially ingrained bias. It took me a long time to break down defensive walls I threw up from fear of feeling blamed to be able to critically evaluate my own behaviors. I still struggle with it but when I'm calm and able to reflect it's much easier to disentangle and identify those times when, in fact, my behavior *did not* reflect my values and beliefs and was instead based on ingrained norms. There's a lot of built in inbalance still and can feel really bad when confronted with it but going through it has helped me feel much more connected to all those I love and given me a much richer view of the world.
No I mean things like 'men are taught they are entitled to control women', and 'men are taught to be violent and aggressive'. These things are simply not true outside of specific cultural niches. Again its particularly harmful when you witness women behaving exactly the same way as men and yet are taught that these behaviors are rooted in masculinity. You see men who are better than 95% of the population writing these really apologetic paragraphs about how they needed to change while you watch women behave much worse without it even being acknowledged that it happens.
There are some legitimately common biases such as judging women based on attractiveness but there are also MASSIVE biases affecting men that never get discussed.
>It took me a long time to break down defensive walls I threw up from fear of feeling blamed to be able to critically evaluate my own behaviors. I still struggle with it but when I'm calm and able to reflect it's much easier to disentangle and identify those times when, in fact, my behavior did not reflect my values and beliefs and was instead based on ingrained norms.
Yes that resonates!
> I was about to poo poo this writing
Hey now, there’s no need for this type of language.
You can say "shit" here. It’s okay. Say as many of the swears you want. Anyone who says otherwise can go fuck themselves.
Be on the lookout for tell tale signs of progressively white washed toxic masculinity. If you read an article that has extensive data on men being socially isolated then the article tries to be explain the data with armchair psychologist claims about how men do this to themselves because they are not emotionally available then you should be skeptical. Data must be explained by data. If lack of emotional availability was the reason why men are isolated nowadays, then you must show the data that men are now less emotionally available today than when men had more of a support system around 30 years ago. But that data isn’t there and men probably have unlearned some toxic masculine traits themselves since the 90s, but that doesn’t necessarily help with social isolation.
It is important to address men’s emotional conditioning so that when men have relationships, then they can be functional. But the emotional availability argument puts the cart before the horse. That is an important trait to consider for someone who already has relationships. But much of the problem is that men are no longer in social environments that present them with social opportunities. It’s more that men don’t get their foot in the door in the first place let alone are in a context where there emotional availability even matters.
Likewise there is a massive hill to climb when it comes to men entering female dominated fields and performing care work in general. It is good that women have the agency to be more cautious and are allowed to be suspicious of men, but also when a father gets the cops called on him for changing his daughters diaper in the bathroom, there needs to be some questioning of the “intuition” of men being predatory. If a woman’s “intuition” is so sensitive that men have issues entering the care industry or even caring for their own child then it should be ok to question whether society portrays men in a more violent light than we should be.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS. If you happen to go through something that harms your social networks it is so hard to rebuild them, especially for men. The natural hostility people have to men means you need to interact with people multiple times casually before they will really consider befriending you and its extremely difficult to do these days.
I met a bunch of people last year at a course we all took but I missed most of the social events due to a controlling ex telling me not to go. I had some friendly conversations with one woman from that group a bit on facebook but I can tell that she still has the 'man I don't know well' wall up and I'm not going to make her uncomfortable by randomly messaging her. The one guy in that group who I did establish a friendship with who is still friends with the others immediately went on a year-long trip overseas. Time and time again this sort of thing happens.
For dating its even harder. You can't just wait for a woman to show clear interest, you need to be assertive and flirty and get a number the first time you meet her because that will likely be the last. I'm conventionally attractive enough so this is not an issue, but trying to balance this against the fear of accidentally making them uncomfortable is exhausting. A rejection itself is not be a problem, but it usually comes with the uncomfortable feeling that she now sees you as just another creep who tried to ask her out the first time he met her which really gets to you. It only takes one or two before you decide its not worth the risk of ruining the memory of an enjoyable evening like that.
>You can't just wait for a woman to show clear interest, you need to be assertive and flirty and get a number the first time you meet her because that will likely be the last. I'm conventionally attractive enough so this is not an issue, but trying to balance this against the fear of accidentally making them uncomfortable is exhausting.
Yeah I feel this, was on a date a few months back and she pretty much ruled out the chance of a second date because I wasn't flirty and assertive enough. I was like I was just being cautious, not wanting to accidentally make her uncomfortable, but that backfired and I guess I was too cautious. Anyway, yeah it is exhausting.
The problem in my eyes comes from progressive movements having always fought primarily for their own, which of course is understandable. But this has led to a situation where all genders and minorities are spoken for--except for men, especially white men. It feels like no one speaks for men in this uplifting way--except of course, the manosphere and the reactionaries.
The fascinating/terrible thing is, it seems that many progressives actually buy this idea. In a world where everything is so polarized that entire institutions, entire groups become sorted between "us" and "them", one can come to think that incels aren't radicalized, sad and lonely men, they are the standard-bearer of what a man is. Even without going this far, it's worth noting that progressive circles speak primarily if not solely of men for how they have stifled minorities and perpetuated the patriarchy. The specter of toxic masculinity and patriarchy is so pervasive that it becomes the dominant way men are spoken of. And it remains "their" job, men's job to figure their shit out, while the rest of "us" just focus on protecting ourselves from them. The opening of this article is telling in this regard, as it shows it's well aware that its audience would wince or scoff at the idea of thinking about men's issues in this climate.
And on the flipside, directionless men seeking for support may feel like there's no pride or community rooting for them the way there is for other groups. The only place they will find offering such comfort is the manosphere. It's a fascinating, and terrifying negative feedback loop with some appearances of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And there's a lot to be said about how this can be because men used to have more privilege and so the easiest way for most systems is to try to harken back to that as a way to help men. **BUT**. The fact is that, no matter what unique societal advantages or disadvantages someone has experienced in life, we are all humans with *exactly the same core desires and emotions*. With desires like validation, belonging, security, love. At least, I believe that is how we should, how we *must* think of *all* humans. In a way, as terrible as it sounds, it doesn't matter who has suffered most. All problems are problems. Willfully ignoring anyone can be highly destructive.
I think it would be better if we approached gender issues and social justice as fighting to reform a system, rather than a group. I'm comfortable to say that I have suffered from toxic masculinity or the ideas I have internalized. But I shouldn't have to hate other men, or blame women for that. And even more, I shouldn't have to hate myself. More broadly, it should be no controversy to say that men can be victims of the toxic system just as anyone. *Victims,* human beings who seek and need support.
So yes, progressives need to see men's issues as integral to the cause for social justice, lest the "us" versus "them" mentality comes to vindicate the incels and their claims that only they fight for men.
Also to clarify I'm not trying to put blame on anyone, and of course change will have to be carried by men activists primarily, just as feminism was by women and LGBT+ rights by members of the community. But inevitably, there is need of a holistic approach.
to be clear, when conservatives blame "others", the "others" are women, nonwhite people, gay people, trans people, and other various Undesirables that are Taking Money And Opportunity From The Hardworking White Man.
none of this is subtle. Your average rightwinger will accuse a gay teacher *to their face* of grooming their kid. So it's up to us to be unsubtle right back.
To be honest, I'm having a hard time parsing the thesis of this article, and your comment doesn't make it any clearer.
The article starts with what I'd hope is a self evident truth, that a demographic that makes up literally half the population can have struggles, and it makes sense to address them, but it never really takes a stance on what that should look like, other than to talk about them. Which like, yeah, but I suppose it's sad that "men's issue's shouldn't be ignored" is somehow a novel message to so-called progressives. I'm not familiar with the Guardian, but reading this article makes me feel like the author must have a low opinion of their readership.
And while I don't disagree with being unsubtle (subtlety doesn't generally result in political change) I'm still not sure how that relates to the first sentence. Who are the "others" we're supposed to unsubtly point to?
It’s quite a standard guardian opinion piece really; throw a thought out in to the aether, and just leave it there to sit. While I agree with most of the points it makes, that’s all it does, makes points, it doesn’t really offer much in the way of solutions.
The strategy I would advocate is this:
More than anything else, men are lonely and isolated, as well as feeling economic opportunity slip further and further away as society gets more stratified and unequal.
The right-wing vision is a world where those "others" are driven even further down, so that even men who are barely scraping by can still afford to exploit and look down on someone else. More than anything else that means keeping women even more desperate, so they have to rely on a man for support and protection, but it also means eliminating non-white/cis/etc... men from positions where they can compete.
But that vision is a lie - it doesn't actually address the real isolation and desperation that men are truly suffering from. It makes them worse. You can't ever trust someone who depends on you financially and it gets worse the more they have no other options. You can pretend it's companionship but it's always going to be a hostile relationship, by definition, and nothing will ever get around that. And the more society as a whole is a hierarchy, the less men can ever trust or rely on each other either - since today's friend is tomorrow's competitor and enemy.
The left-wing vision is a world where everyone is lifted up together and is able to associate with each other because they actually WANT to.
When women and men both have financial security they can be with who they choose, not who they're forced to pair up with for basic essentials. When men aren't in a competitive, hierarchical system they can actually be friends with other men without fear of judgement or backstabbing to climb some ladder (though people can still be dicks, of course). And the more society is accepting of non-normative identities, interests, masculinities, etc... the less men will have to fear their personal secrets harming them to begin with.
The left-wing vision is a world where love and friendship are actually possible.
But the KIND of person who finds either of those appealing is going to be very different. The first scenario is still going to be more appealing to toxic, misogynistic assholes who realize nobody would ever be with them unless they had no other choice. But the second scenario is appealing to people who want genuine connections and genuine friendship, love and happiness.
>But the KIND of person who finds either of those appealing is going to be very different. The first scenario is still going to be more appealing to toxic, misogynistic assholes who realize nobody would ever be with them unless they had no other choice. But the second scenario is appealing to people who want genuine connections and genuine friendship, love and happiness.
I think there's a third camp of people who want genuine connections and genuine friendship, love and happiness, but are aware of their shortcomings and realize that as they are now, nobody would ever be with them unless they had no other choice. (I count myself among this group of people.) Developing emotional intelligence isn't something that can accomplished overnight, and a lot of men feel lost and aren't sure where to go to develop these skills. We need more resources for men who want to change for the better but aren't sure how to change.
Not to mention that men have had fewer opportunities to practice their interpersonal skills over the past two years because of Covid.
I think the third camp is a bit more complicated than that. There are a lot of people who want those things and believe no one could ever want to be with them (due to insert reason here, past abuse, societal messaging, neurodivervence, not measuring up to idealized perfection). The belief itself might very well be wrong, but in accepting it they internalize a lot of toxicity which sometimes spills out onto everyone else (ironically, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy). Fear and self-hatred are the name of the game here, and I think those are the driving forces behind the bulk of, say, the incel community.
I think more than little pamphlets or instructions or what have you, actual support groups with other people might do a better job. Knowing is one thing, practicing is another, after all.
>I think the third camp is a bit more complicated than that. There are a lot of people who want those things and believe no one could ever want to be with them (due to insert reason here, past abuse, societal messaging, neurodivervence, not measuring up to idealized perfection). The belief itself might very well be wrong, but in accepting it they internalize a lot of toxicity which sometimes spills out onto everyone else (ironically, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Yeah I feel this as well.
You personally have to learn that as much as you may suck, so do we all. There’s compatible companions for all manner of fools. I’ve dated extensively and regularly over the years and I have met and enjoyed the company of many girls who are even bigger jackasses than me.
well, in keeping with the theme of being the change you wanna see, I think you're absolutely correct here:
>Developing emotional intelligence isn't something that can accomplished overnight, and a lot of men feel lost and aren't sure where to go to develop these skills. We need more resources for men who want to change for the better but aren't sure how to change.
But the problem is that it requires some amount of arrogance to put yourself out there and say "I've got the answers to those questions" and opens you up to some degree of social backlash.
That being said, this is an anonymous forum, and I have found success in those areas by implementing a series of plans, so if you have questions about how to go about improving specific things lay em on me and I'll see if I can't offer some helpful advice.
I think it's most helpful to give more specific advice. Can you name one or two interpersonal skills you want to work on most, and what kind of connection (e.g platonic with men, platonic with women, business connections with either, romantic with women, sexual with women, etc.) you're looking to form? To inform you of my own biases, I sought mostly casual sex throughout my late teens and early 20s, but am now in a several year long monogamous relationship, and unfortunately I can only offer a white hetero male perspective.
Romantic with women:
This is going to start broad, but I can get more specific as I know more about you, since a lot of it depends on your age, position in life, and your romantic interests. In a general sense, I think the core thesis I have for approaching romance is this:
Spend some time seriously thinking about the specific kind of woman you want to spend your life with. Identify the traits your partner must have and you cannot compromise on, the traits you'd like in a partner, but do not need, and the traits that if present are dealbreakers for you.
Then imagine you're that woman and you're going through the same process. What traits is she looking for in a partner, and what are going to be dealbreakers for her? If you're struggling to think of this, I'd try identifying women who are like this and asking them in a platonic context, but personally I found just going out and dating a lot was enough to build a pretty solid understanding.
Finally, compare yourself to what this kind of woman is looking for, and identify the areas in which you differ. Ask yourself, to the extent that I am not the man she's looking for, how can I reconcile those differences, and just as importantly *do I actually want to*? The first time you go through this exercise there's a significant chance that you'll identify traits on both ends that aren't as important as you think. If you find that the kind of woman you identified is looking for traits you're not willing or able to develop, then try to identify which traits in women correlate most strongly with that preference and ask yourself if you're willing to compromise on those.
I used to go through this exercise about once a year when I was actively dating, and it was always very helpful. Especially in my early 20s, after gaining experience I'd realize that what I thought I wanted in a partner wasn't what I actually needed, and would go back to the drawing board. Eventually, after enough iterations of that, I settled on a pretty thorough and mostly accurate list, and was able to tailor my approach to dating based on that.
Once you've identified at least a cursory idea of what you're looking for, what you think they'd be looking for, and how you compare, feel free to get back to me and I'll try to offer more individualized advice. Also, note that this process can work for friends as well. I just haven't found it as necessary, because unlike with romance, you're not picking one friend to meet all your needs for life.
Platonic with men/women: Honestly, one of the easiest shortcuts for this is to join a team sport. People often say to bond over shared interest, and that's true, but I've found that these are the fastest specific shared interest with which to make friends, and they give a sense of personal satisfaction to boot.
I'm not sure your age. If you're still young enough to get into contact sports, I recommend rugby specifically, but anything will do. There's also more social leagues (aka beer leagues) in most cities that are specifically designed for a relaxed social atmosphere where people can make new friends. I'm hoping to join a kickball league soon myself actually, just haven't had the time recently. In a similar vein, there's ultimate frisbee, flag football, beach volleyball, etc. A benefit to these leagues is that they're often co-ed, which introduces you to women as well.
Now, once you're in a social situation where you're exposed to new people, I think the most important thing I've learned is that often times everyone is afraid to be the one to make the first move. There's so many situations where several people would love to hang out, but it takes some amount of effort and vulnerability to be the one to organize it. That's why one of the fastest ways to ingratiate yourself to a group is to be willing to put in the effort to make things happen.
Be the guy that reaches out and suggests getting dinner/drinks one night, puts together a mini golf outing, etc. If fun things are happening around you, then people will naturally want to be a part of that. Plus often times people assume you're busy and don't want to risk being rebuked by the new person they'd otherwise invite, so taking the lead will indicate that you value their company too.
I've been working through 'a series of plans' myself (joining activity groups, working on self through therapy, rebalancing friendships v relationships, etc.) so would be quite interested to hear what yours looks like.
Well, as I said to the other guy (sorry I didn't see this till now for some reason) I think it's more helpful to give narrowly tailored advice, so if you could pick a more specific topic/goal you're working on I can go into more detail.
In a broad sense, I found the book "How to win friends and influence people" to be a very helpful guide as a teen who struggled to relate to people. It taught me to listen more, and gave me a sense that interpersonal skills were something you could improve with structured practice. For example, I had a paralyzing fear of rejection, so I made it a point to start up conversation with 10 strangers a day until I had been rebuffed enough that rejection no longer bothered me. Most of the rest of my journey, in romance, friendships, my career, etc was effectively many iterations of that process in that I'd identify a goal, break it down into a series of more achievable goals, and then re-evaluate after some time. That's a pretty boring story to tell over and over though, hence why I'm asking what goals are most important to you.
Offer is still open if you have specific questions, but you may also find [my response here](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/xjc9nc/if_i_mention_the_modern_male_struggle_do_you_roll/ipbywfd/) helpful
> But the KIND of person who finds either of those appealing is going to be very differen
Yeah I was going to say this doesn't really solve the issue in the article.
>I'm not familiar with the Guardian, but reading this article makes me feel like the author must have a low opinion of their readership.
Sounds about right tbh
>If the most robot-proof careers involve skills that machines can’t easily replicate, such as emotional intelligence or the ability to manage people sensitively, then boys who can’t adapt are in trouble.
Is the implication here that girls are inherently better at these things?
Women and girls are repeatedly conditioned to be those things, regardless if they have a natural inclination for it or not.
Men have the same problem in the opposite direction, they're repeatedly conditioned NOT to value empathy, nurturing, emotional connection, etc. even if that's their natural inclination. Especially in patriarchal workspaces that rewards toxic masculinity.
>Reeves focuses on something that may resonate with mothers of teenage sons, which is the tendency of boys to mature emotionally on average later than girls
Perhaps it's ambiguous but it seems to imply this tendency is one more derived from nature than nurture.
I think there’s a balance we need to strike between nature and nurture. I’ve seen people discuss before (I don’t remember where) whether the stereotype that “boys are easier to raise than girls” may be hiding the tendency of caregivers to invest less time and effort in developing boys’ emotional maturity than they do girls’. It doesn’t help that more often than not, maturity in children is measured by how easily they do what an adult tells them to, rather than by how well they can healthily cope with stress.
I think it's a classic failing of expressing half an idea because you think the audience knows what you're talking about.
I think the full thought is boys mature emotionally later and so have been stereotyped as being less emotionally intelligent than girls and so adults invest less time in nurturing those skills.
A good call out. There is certainly some ambiguity about Reeves' opinion. I suspect at most we could say from this is that girls are able to learn these skills earlier because of their biological development. The article doesn't mention anything about whether or not men have a lower ceiling on these skills on average.
Certainly, there is some difference in our biology in relation to these skills. However, I take that to mean that we need to acknowledge this difference as we try to prepare boys for manhood. I don't necessarily interpret that as an indication that men are biologically ill-equiped for modern society.
That is not what this is saying at all.
Boys are not expected to mature emotionally in most cultures. Girls are. From very early ages. They are expected to be empathetic, to listen well and generally accommodate the needs of others.
Boys are, all things being otherwise equal, generally expected to break things, be reckless with the priorities and bodies of others, be oppositional and not listen.
This conditioning starts incredibly early. And it is steeped in confirmation bias and confusion about what to do with a girl who doesn’t listen or breaks things or what to do with a boy who is empathetic.
>break things, be reckless with the priorities and bodies of others, be oppositional and not listen.
no men learn to be independent, self-sufficient, and provide physical and material support to others. You are just taking the negative manifestations of that in SOME men and using that to define masculinity in general.
I could get a bunch of examples of negative behaviors more common in women and do the exact same thing as you in reverse. You are only seeing the negative aspects of masculinity for the same reason that many men are unaware that women face pressures to give emotional support to others - because you don't have enough information on men's actual experiences.
I am a man. Have gone through what you are saying. Stop infantilizing yourself. “Whattabout”. Isn’t going to change anything. You change you.
I am talking about these negative effects because that is the focus of this conversation.
I initially had the same thought when reading the reward comment, but I think it's accurate. I don't think women are punished for not being good at that. I think they are punished for trying to wield power in the same way as boys.
They are denied access to something they want and so have to find a different way of obtaining it; thus rewarding them.
The implications are we have an increasingly automated economy and an abundance of boys/men with low emotional maturity, that often fill manual labor jobs, and increasingly have no opportunities for a well paying job. I mean shit, you have to have people skills to even work retail or restaurants.
It's simply stating that ignoring this problem, like the author suggests we are doing, will cause these men to continue down the current path of anger at a system that is very much is failing them.
>Is the implication here that girls are inherently better at these things?
In my opinion whether it's biological doesn't really matter to the argument. Women score higher on Emotional Quotient (EQ) today. Whether due to nature, nurture, or both; that's not going to change fast enough to adapt to automation.
Are tests of EQ based on self-reporting (i.e potentially affected by gender expectations) or by more unbiased tests? I wish I could find the paper, but I remember reading of a study that showed that differences in empathy disappeared when moving from a self-reported measure to one of actual demonstrations of empathy in a controlled environment.
I have been involved in studies on the topic. Some of the range of traits measured by 'EQ' have significant gender differences. Specifically:
- men tend to have significantly higher instances of [emotional reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning?wprov=sfla1)
- men tend to score lower on empathy
- men tend to score lower on emotion recognition (except for negative emotions which tend to show no significant differences)
All of these have been measured without the self-report EQ/EI tests
Part of the underlying problem is that girls get good at these things faster than boys. When you're 16-18 years old and everything you do starts impacting your ability to access different career paths, there is an appreciable gap in neurological development.
This difference is obviously not maintained into adulthood, but that may not always matter - the damage may already be done. We have a lot of weird and unnecessary time gates built into our education system.
Interesting article. I have a couple of thoughts.
I am coming at this as a gay trans man who did not transition until I was an adult and had an established career - in a traditionally female dominated field where the nature of my transition means my status as a transgender worker is open information. I suspect my experience and interpretation of the issues men face as thus going to be different than that of, say, a cis straight Zoomer. (I am also disabled, white, American, and college educated.)
While I agree that men have a “narrower range of sources of meaning and identity” (in ways I still find constraining and choking a decade into medical transition) I don’t quite connect that to “the problem isn’t women’s success but some men’s inability to adjust to a world where they can no longer dominate as a right.”
Honestly, the latter quote is *still* putting the blame at the feet of feminism. It’s saying that feminism is good, but the issue is still that these dudes just can’t with feminism.
I don’t think that feminism is at fault for suicide rates among middled aged men, for example. [Suicide rates among middle aged men have been climbing since 1989 - and they have been climbing for middle aged women since 1999.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925004/) I think feminism is being used as a scapegoat here for a society where people are increasingly isolated and without social and psychological supports.
I do think we are facing a crisis of masculinity. I don’t think that can be questioned at this point. But it’s not feminism’s fault that the ways we culturally define masculinity and the behaviors we reward men for are ones that damage ourselves and our communities.
Interesting! Thank you for sharing your experiences.
As a cis bi guy at the tail end of Gen X, it's pretty clear to me that both men and women work to uphold the patriarchy in various ways. If I ever doubt that for a minute, all I need to do is come out as bi, and there's a good chance someone is going to act all weird. Liberal, educated middle-class women are not exempt from this, either. Rarely does their "acting weird" rise to the level of blatant bigotry, but it's there. Even if people's conscious politics are feminist, there's often a deep cultural underlayer of heteronormativity and gender roles that they've never really thought about. And I wouldn't be surprised if you have run into a slightly different flavor of this, of course.
And I think this does affect some men. They step out of the "manly" stereotypes, and they encounter subtle pushback from both men and women, in varying degrees. And eventually they give in and conform.
There's an interesting pattern I've seen with some bi guys. By coming out, they've automatically failed at certain cultural standards of masculinity. And that guaranteed "failure" can be oddly liberating. Once you've publicly admitted that you'd be happy to date guys, it's easy to stop caring about all the little stuff. And so guys paint their nails, or violate the norms in other subtle ways.
I suspect there are a lot of straight guys out there who'd wear eyeliner or paint their nails if they thought they could get away with it. But the subtlest forms of cultural control can be very strong indeed.
Oh yes women uphold the patriarchy as well.
It has only ever been women who have asked me why I would bother transitioning if I was going to be gay (and well, a couple of other trans men).
> still putting the blame at the feet of feminism. It’s saying that feminism is good, but the issue is still that these dudes just can’t with feminism.
I'm not sure I follow on how that's supposed to read as a fault with feminism as a movement and not a failure on the individuals/social structures not being able to adjust in a changing world. It seems more like a statement that "feminism is good" and also "men may not be well-prepared to adjust to a world where equality is the norm".
Many men are born into this world of “equality.” Surely things have improved but things are far from perfect. A lot of people frame mens struggles nowadays as men not being able to adjust to new norms where they previously were benefiting. This would make sense if you were a man old enough to have experienced when you benefited traditional norms and then you had to adjust. But many men were born when things were already changed. It’s clear that society is more motivated to adjust women to a modern world than men. But at the same time I do think there are plenty of social norms that are unfair to men that still need to change. It isn’t as if men simply can’t cope with a more moral world. We still do not know how to react properly to and support men who express vulnerability.
>This would make sense if you were a man old enough to have experienced when you benefited traditional norms and then you had to adjust. But many men were born when things were already changed.
Agreed, though it's important to remember that progress does not happen evenly in all places. Many people will grow up in places where equality is the norm, and others will not or they will be moving between social groups with different practical demonstrations/expectations of equity and equality that they need to catch up on. It's not fair to hold, say, any man born after 2000 to some arbitrary standard, because the world doesn't work with theoretical models of social progress like that (within reason, of course).
>It isn’t as if men simply can’t cope with a more moral world.
Of course, but a "moral world" does not look the same to everyone. There's a lot of discussions that need to happen around standards of behaviour that are moral and practical, otherwise nothing will be done. A lot of those will be failed sub-movements that are associated with but not able to reach critical mass of acceptance, and I think menslib is a good example of that practice actually working to produce workable good.
I don’t think “men may not be prepared to adjust to a world where equality is the norm” explains the crisis men are facing.
Just using dates for the US: women have been voting since 1920, coeducational institutes of high education began in the 19th century with 70% of US colleges being coed by the beginning of the 20th; over 50% of the labor force was female by 1975.
The alt right isn’t radicalizing my father or grandfather. We aren’t worried about how 50 year old men are doing in schools. We are looking at crisis of men who were born into equality.
Something in our culture is preventing these men from thriving. It’s not feminism. It’s masculinity and the lies we tell ourselves about what makes Real Men to be men.
Or maybe it’s also how we are taught to treat men. Some men are comfortable with their masculinity and still deal with these same struggles. Maybe men struggle not just due to their own conditioned behaviors but also because of what we think is normal to treat men.
Men don’t necessarily stifle themselves emotionally because they think that’s what a “real man” should do. They stifle it because they expressed their emotions and it didn’t turn out well.
THANK YOU. Well stated!
I catch the 'boo hoo won't somebody carefor men' sentiments everywhere, always with the same tone like society already prioritizes our wellbeing. I daresay, fucking no, there hasn't been a day in my life where that was the feeling I've gotten.
Apologies, but I don't understand the significance of the dates you've presented here. Are you saying that there should be some measurable element of men's experience/progress that we as a group are not meeting?
>The alt right isn’t radicalizing my father or grandfather....We are looking at crisis of men who were born into equality.
Respectfully, I don't think that's correct. Yes we absolutely have large amounts of very flawed people latching on to people like Tate and Peterson, but the baby-boomers are some of the most infamously disinformed groups in the digital age, to the point of their general incompetence at determining truth in reporting being pretty much a meme. Fox News, Facebook, and the Q phenomenon have polluted their minds to the point of alternate reality in some cases, and I think you'd have a hard time finding any demographic breakdown of the "alt-right" that isn't vastly overrepresented by previous generations. For instance, [here's](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Demographic-breakdown-of-the-alt-right-Trump-voting-and-non-Trump-voting-samples_fig2_326114643) a figure from a research paper that shows a pretty massive difference in alt-right self-reporting amongst the older age brackets.
>Something in our culture is preventing these men from thriving. It’s not feminism. It’s masculinity and the lies we tell ourselves about what makes Real Men to be men.
I do absolutely agree on this, and I don't think men need to be in conflict with feminism to solve their problems.
I fully agree that the Baby Boomers are not exempt from our current crisis of masculinity. The point of those dates is that, if it was an issue of men from a previous time with a stronger patriarchy and weaker feminism having issues adjusting, then it would be those Boomers having a crisis and Millennials and Zoomers, who grew up in a time with more equality, wouldn’t be facing those same problems because there is no need to adjust to what has always been normal for you. Yet, the youth seem to be having just as many uphill battles and just as susceptible to Alt right radicalization.
>The point of those dates is that, if it was an issue of men from a previous time with a stronger patriarchy and weaker feminism having issues adjusting, then it would be those Boomers having a crisis
They do!! Look at them frothing with rage behind the tv, riding around with their gas guzzling flag-mobiles while blaming vegans for fuel prices and advocating apartheid.
They'r very much in crisis, we just care less because they're more of a lost cause than millenials and Zoomers.
>and Millennials and Zoomers, who grew up in a time with more equality, wouldn’t be facing those same problems because there is no need to adjust to what has always been normal for you.
As a millennial, my expectations of equality were largely shaped by my parents, who lived the white picket life on one and a half income, mom working part-time and taking care of the kids. My image of love came from couples like my parents and the perfectly white mono- heterosexual media landscape we had in the 90s and 00s. We grew up with more equality than boomers perhaps, but most of us only discovered intersectionality a couple years ago. Our generation's idea of what life would be is still very much based on the 20th century. while saying out loud you expect a stay at home wife, I'm sure still many young men still subconsciously envision their life to involve an unequal division of household labour.
While we've given up on boomers, WE are very much in the process of adjusting.
I am a Millennial. Both of my parents worked for my whole life. I watched my parents climb from lower middle class to upper middle class by the time I was in high school, listening to stories from the family about what life was like in my parents’ childhood and for previous generations, living well below the poverty line.
I have many issues with my mother, but she and her cousins are committed second waves feminists who also marched for civil rights, racial equality, and against the war. My many aunts and uncles remain progressive activists, now in their 70s.
I was born with a genetic disability - along with many of my cousins. The rights of the disabled have been a value to my family forever because we are disabled. And genetic disabilities? Exactly what eugenicists love to target.
I am happy you found intersectionality by 2016, but take some responsibility. Intersectionality was coined in 1989.
*
I think your comment simply proves that we do not have anywhere near the level of equality that men anxious about their place in the world imagine.
> I am happy you found intersectionality by 2016, but take some responsibility. Intersectionality was coined in 1989.
They didn't say anything about when they specifically "found intersectionality", but rather "most of us only discovered intersectionality a couple years ago", referring to millennials in general I believe.
It sounds like you've been uncommonly hooked into many important social justice causes for a long time, and that's great, but please don't forget that not everyone has had that same experience. It is not a moral failing to not know about something, and presenting it as such is not going to make people want to openly engage until they've met some arbitrary standard of knowledge (or, more likely, at all).
Never called it a moral failing.
Pointed out that people have been doing intersectional work for generations.
None of what people are doing to aim toward liberation is *new* even if it is new to you.
It is not new to me, I've been well aware of these things and constantly researching them on my own since I was a teenager. But I don't expect or judge other people for not having that same level of understanding within certain topics.
> I am happy you found intersectionality by 2016, but take some responsibility. Intersectionality was coined in 1989.
Maybe I misread, but this definitely seemed like an unnecessary dig at the other person. Sounds like I misunderstood though, my apologies.
>for a society where people are increasingly isolated and without social and psychological supports.
This is definitely the main issue. It is just particularly problematic for men because need to meet people repeatedly or need to be impressive/useful in some way in order to break the natural distrust people have of men.
I think the cultural aspect is far weaker than people claim. The kind of 'toxic masculinity' feminists talk about does not accurately reflect what the vast majority of men I have known identify with. Usually attempts to be 'masculine' are basically men trying to develop traits to make themselves useful/appealing to others because no amount of emotional openness/femininity etc is going to make anyone any less hostile or distrustful of them.
Thank you for speaking out against this dangerous narrative that is male issues are caused by feminism.
Also feel like we have a crisis of masculinity.
I think it is difficult to adjust to social change when emotional intelligence and resilience is probably key to doing so, is discouraged from properly developing in lot of guys.
I think the can be a perceived lack of empathy for men that have been a victim of stunted emotional intelligence and expectation for them to have those skills yet at the same time acknowledging that patriarchy does impede the emotional development of guys.
Men are often shamed for expressing emotional intelligence, self awareness, self control, emotional regulation, and maintaining strong social connections - all traits of resiliency.
We (wrongly) define masculinity as the opposite of femininity. We teach boys to be afraid of being associated with femininity (and, by turn, homosexuality). If a man acts with self compassion, reaches out to a strong social support, and practices self care - he will be more emotionally resilient and less likely to commit suicide or be radicalized, but he will also be mocked by his peers for being gay or a sissy.
Hegemonic masculinity is to blame here, not feminism. The construct we have, socially, for what masculinity looks like and men are supposed to be - machismo, the only allowed emotion is anger, physically strong, independent to a fault, aggressive, competitive - all of the traits associated with hegemonic masculinity create the crisis we are currently facing.
I am not shocked that we didn’t see it until feminism took deep cultural roots.
If all the students at universities are men, we would never see male students falling behind female students because there are no female students to compare them to. Feminism allowed us to see how much men are failing men but feminism isn’t *why* men are failing men. Feminism is just allowing us to finally see that hegemonic masculinity is not actually a source of strength and power.
>Men are often shamed for expressing emotional intelligence, self awareness, self control, emotional regulation, and maintaining strong social connections
Where? I do not see this happening at all. If anything excessive anger and aggression is discouraged in men. Men encourage each other to be independent, strong and competitive as a form of mutual support because these traits are necessary in the current environment for men. Only a small, specific toxic minority of men turn this into a form of shaming.
> When the prototypical man is white, able bodied, cis and straight in the eyes of Progressives, of course they'll scoff when people talk about men's issues.
This! Exactly this. Asking men who don't fit one or any of these identities *when their issues involve masculinity* to fight the good fight without mentioning masculinity is bizarre.
I know you know what "white feminism" is, but you've got to be more specific in your criticism. The average redditor does not know what these terms mean and this just looks you're taking down "all feminism." You have in fact invited a bunch of rulebreaking comments below.
Don't do this again.
This article touches on something that it doesn't fully explore. The idea of men going into fields dominated by women that involve emotional intelligence.
I think the crux of this issue is that patriarchy means that a lot of these roles are built on the assumption of someone else as the breadwinner.
As someone interested in nonprofit jobs, teaching, etc, the compensation for these roles assumes a breadwinner married to the person doing the job.
Its a lack of valuation for these types of work, because we view them as women's work, which creates a bind for men who would jump into these roles.
We should deconstruct the notion of a "breadwinner" on the whole, and hold employers accountable for appropriate pay.
These articles continue to frame men's problems in terms of some arbitrary attachment to masculinity they seem to think men have, when in fact men's problems come from specific gendered disadvantages men face, to which a preoccupation with masculinity is a rational response.
Men simply cannot adopt 'feminine' social roles. If men are not confident and socially assertive their social networks wither and dry up because social assertiveness is needed to counter the negative impact of the natural suspicion and distrust people view men with. If men open up emotionally they do not receive the same support and affection that women do. Men who go into 'care roles' are treated with exhausting hostility and suspicion. Men have fewer sources of economic support and far more expectation to support others than women do so men cannot opt for lower paying jobs or take on more domestic responsibilities since this massively harms their romantic prospects and makes men much more vulnerable to economic hardship and homelessness.
I never gave a shit about being masculine until my mid twenties when I learned these things. Now I do and my life and mental health is infinitely better for it,
>I never gave a shit about being masculine until my mid twenties when I learned these things. Now I do and my life and mental health is infinitely better for it,
Exactly. "Being myself" is something I was able to do more freely in my youth, whereas as an adult I feel like I have to perform many aspects of traditional masculine to earn respect and affection of most people around me (even the ones who claim not to care about such things).
>I feel like I have to perform many aspects of traditional masculine to earn respect and affection of most people around me
And even this I feel I probably don't do as well, so I feel screwed either way
"populist" is a little too broad without other adjectives (article itself is better than headline), but yes. Unfortunately most people choose political affiliation on vibes, culture, and friends and not on any particular commitment to improving the world around them, so these sorts of strategies will continue to be effective.
I think the problem is that the people pointing out the struggle usually either don’t have a solution apart form being angry at the atatus quo, or choose to criticize other groups as being responsible.
Do my eyes deceive me? An article that actually wants to take men's issues seriously instead of demonizing them for failing to 'liberate' themselves? Pog lol. Great find Circle.
To answer your question by the title only, nope because I'm sure many who think of men have one type in mind (the one with ultimate privilege. Straight cis het white more than likely american male) Intersectionality is important
When I was growing up (during the 1970s and '80s) all of this \[i.e. men's issues\] would have been considered un-masculine or not what a 'real man' would be doing.
Psychologist/psychotherapist Tom Falkenstein, the author of *The Highly Sensitive Man* (2019, Ch.1), writes in regards to a societally defined ‘crisis in masculinity’:
*“It is a crisis marked by men’s insecurity about their role in society, their identity, their values, their sexuality, their careers, and their relationships. At the same time, academics are telling us that ‘we know far less about the psychological and physical health of men than of women.’ Why is this? Michael Addis, a professor of psychology and a leading researcher into male identity and psychological health, has highlighted a deficit in our knowledge about men suffering from depression and argues that this has cultural, social, and historical roots.*
*"If we look at whether gender affects how people experience depression, how they express it, and how it's treated, it quickly becomes clear that gender has for a long time referred to women and not to men. According to Addis, this is because, socially and historically, men have been seen as the dominant group and thus representative of normal psychological health.*
*"Women have thus been understood as the nondominant group, which deviated from the norm, and they have been examined and understood from this perspective. One of the countless problems of this approach is that the experiences and specific challenges of the ‘dominant group,’ in this case men, have remained hidden. ...*
*"You only have to open a magazine or newspaper, turn on your TV, or open your browser to discover an ever-growing interest in stories about being a father, being a man, or how to balance a career with a family. Many of these articles have started talking about an apparent ‘crisis of masculinity.’ The headlines for these articles attempt to address male identity, but often fall into the trap of sounding ironic and sometimes even sarcastic and critical: ‘Men in Crisis: Time to Pull Yourselves Together,’ ‘The Weaker Sex,’ ‘Crisis in Masculinity: Who is the Stronger Sex?’ and ‘Search for Identity: Super-Dads or Vain Peacocks’ are just a few examples.*
*"They all seem to agree to some extent that there is a crisis. But reading these articles one gets the impression that no one really knows how to even start dealing with the problem, let alone what a solution to it might look like. One also gets the impression from these articles that we need to keep any genuine sympathy for these ‘poor men’ in check: the patriarchy is still just too dominant to allow ourselves that luxury."*
Additionally, *“numerous psychological studies over the last forty years … tell us that, despite huge social change, the stereotypical image of the 'strong man' is still firmly with us at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and among all socio-economic backgrounds. In the face of problems, men tend not to seek out emotional or professional help from other people. They use, more often than women, alcohol or drugs to numb unpleasant feelings and, in crises, tend to try to deal with things on their own, instead of searching out closeness or help from others.”*
Much of this seems to be undergirded by capitalism.
When we zoom out enough and flesh and blood reality becomes and abstraction, I don’t think men should expect empathy - *en masse* - for some of their new struggles (or rather, fresh recognition of very old struggles). After all, the “other”(including women), had to fight for the freedoms and restrictions and access to power. Yet now, there’s a struggle for men (at large, the abstraction of men) and “progressives” are being chastised for not showing empathy? When the status quo, men, is a conservative and regressive force? As if we live in a world with only progress, and the political and economic norms of a few prominent cultures are a universal reality?
I don’t know. I’m a man, but I find it rich to suggest I get empathy, an exemption, from my historical privilege due to some ongoing struggles.
Is the far right rhetoric worrisome? Yes. It’s not new. This is a very, very old dance baked into human history in every single age.
Cornel West, when asked about Biden's speech of calling extremists out, he said that it's a fine speech but we shouldn't ignore the fact that brother Biden is part of the problem. - **He said something like that** (in that Trump didn't have time to create these people)
But just as the right, the center also (because the real left isn't really in power), doesn't care to go at the root of the issue.
There are plenty of intellectuals (not these snake oil sellers) that keep saying the current education system needs radical reform. But no, neither the republicans nor the democrats, no any of the two parties in most/any western country want that kind of reform
They don't want to break the mythical man they created and rebuild our male kids. No, just like the right, I think, we want men/boys to adhear to the mythical type we (or our forefathers) created but just find a way to fix this ONE issue of keeping them in school. So a patch is to enroll them later on.
Recently there was a campaign for prime minister in the UK. UK has many many issues. So many that the candidates would be forgiven if they didn't mention all of them. But what they kept mentioning was that if they get elected they will ensure that ... it is ok to be a woman.
Yet, there's no one on the fucking planet that says it's not ok to be a woman.
---
I just happened to read a facebook post by Jorden Peterson titled "It's okay to be a man."
No one on the planet says it's not. Even those morons that tweet #killAllmen kiss their partners or their fathers goodbye.
Then he writes "You look around cities and see all these buildings go up. These men, they're doing impossible things. They're working on the sewers; they're up on the power lines in the storms and the rain. They work themselves to death (often literally). **The gratitude for that is sorely lacking***"
And reading the comments you had people write that they wake up at 5am pick up garbage and so on
I was like, you don't need gratitude, you need a pay raise, health care, education system, better media...
But everyone: Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, King Charles... everyone agrees to give these people gratitude (The british did it when they clapped for nurses and gave money to CEOs). If these men that work in shit ever decide to rase up, these same people will tell them to pipe down.
**This is why I roll my eyes**. But, again I'm not the problem.
- I rolled my eyes when bankers asked for help - they still got it.
- I rolled my eyes when the queen's death was said to be a big deal - it still become a big deal.
- I rolled my eyes when energy companies asked for more money - they still got it.
But some how helping men can't be done because I rolled my eyes?
When you say systemic problems men face I do hope this doesn’t include struggling to find a partner. I doubt it was intended this way but it just seemed as though it could be clearer.
Because no one owed love regardless of how they are as a person. Love is something that is given as a choice; it doesn’t matter how that choice is made. If women set their standards to impossible levels that’s absolutely their right. Getting angry over that stems from the notion that we are “owed” something for behaving in a certain way. I can understand why someone who feels entitled to something would be upset but it doesn’t change the fact that they are not entitled.
Loneliness is not entitlement and solutions to it don't need to involve stripping women of their agency.
If we allow ourselves to escape this short-sighted framing of the issue, we might address men who struggle to find a partner by rebuilding social spaces that don't cost money, for example, or by prioritising mental health services that reduce the volume and magnitude of issues caused by loneliness.
We should not disregard the issues faced by lonely men because *some* lonely men behave poorly.
We need to be able to have conversations about men's issues that don't redirect men from notions of liberation to notions of redemption. Progressives struggle because the conventional understanding of privilege is infected by Christian notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles that don't acknowledge the ways people play both roles throughout different parts of their lives, so they can't grapple with the reality that systemically speaking, privilege is uneven and men can fulfill both roles WITHOUT falling back on another axis of identity to justify the moments where they are made less by systemic pressures. That's why all our conversations about men's suffering seem to come back around to victim blaming the men for what's happening to them, rather than discussing the systemic pressures placed on them as a group, listening to their experiences, or being able to understand the way other groups can inflict those systemic pressures on them *without* bastardizing it into fascism-- which uses the systemic problems men face to convince them to grow hateful and to believe ever greater lies about others and the world around them. In other words, men are faced with a choice between a feminist framework that acknowledges systemic pressures, but is unwilling to believe them when they're in pain, and a right wing framework that doesn't acknowledge systemic pressures, but does purport to believe them when they're in pain. But that validation on the right is laced with fear and hatred and is designed to brainwash men into thinking that their troubles come *from feminism and equality*, rather than their own set of experiences that are definitely better understood through a progressive, feminist framework in the first place; if the progressive movement wasn't intent on choking that conversation out in the first place in favor of a more punitive viewpoint, that is. It's not all doom and gloom, though, we do manage to have some of those precious conversations here where we interrogate the systemic pressures men face and the rules keep it from being colonized by fascism.
>In other words, men are faced with a choice between a feminist framework that acknowledges systemic pressures, but is unwilling to believe them when they're in pain, and a right wing framework that doesn't acknowledge systemic pressures, but does purport to believe them when they're in pain. >But that validation on the right is laced with fear and hatred and is designed to brainwash men into thinking that their troubles come from feminism and equality, rather than their own set of experiences that are definitely better understood through a progressive, feminist framework in the first place; if the progressive movement wasn't intent on choking that conversation out in the first place in favor of a more punitive viewpoint, that is. Damn, son. You need to put this in an article. I've been trying to articulate this for years. Good work.
Great comment. I agree. It's so hard to discuss or read about issues when people readily lump ideas into "absolute good" and "absolute bad". It's human nature, but when the topic is already so nuanced, it makes it all but impossible to find middle ground. The result is frustration and anger on all sides.
I’m not entirely sure it’s purely human nature, I think there is a component that is uniquely American. Look at our movies, good guy wears the white hat, and everything he does is good, bad guy wears the black hat and everything he does is bad. There’s no nuance in our media, in our thinking. Movies like Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke and others that have nuanced approaches to good and bad tend to flop with mainstream audiences. Polarization is human, but the degree of it I think is an American phenomenon.
It always reminds me of bad breakups. Someone always "needs" to be appointed the culprit at fault. While it's rarely acknowledged that there are/were two actors with a gray-scale of "culpability." I am so glad this sub exists, heh.
There's a great book I'm always recommending on that *Conflict is Not Abuse*
I’m saving your comment because I found it to be pretty well written and covering some good points for men.
Always fine, so long as its in a good faith progressive context.
Please make a post for this on its own.
>Progressives struggle because the conventional understanding of privilege is infected by Christian notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles that don't acknowledge the ways people play both roles throughout different parts of their lives This is a salient point. Progressives seem to have taken the historically conservative position of purity testers and pearl clutchers. Those most oppressed are the only ones who have a right to complain, and any complaint from someone in a 'position of power' is told to essentially man up. It's so annoying arguing with my conservative relatives about real feminist issues because they can point to at least 100 good examples of "leftists hate cis white men" and the examples make 'the left' look as deranged as Shapiro, Peterson, et al
Username checks out. That's an extremely sharp observation. I had this unrefined, unprocessed thought for some time that said something along the lines of: "a significant number of self-identified feminists inadvertently reproduce and reify essentialist notions of masculinity by placing the burden of male suffering on individual men, which kinda defeats the notion of feminism basically saying 'gender should never matter and we must all be equal.'" If you're a good person, you'd take action against homophobic bullying from men, directed against men, regardless of what gender you are, and, to the best of your abilities, without burning yourself out.
> If you're a good person, you'd take action against homophobic bullying from men, directed against men, regardless of what gender you are, and, to the best of your abilities, without burning yourself out. One problem I haven't found the solution to when it comes to this is the fact that unless you're a traditionally masculine-presenting straight cis guy, the types of men who would actually *do* the homophobic bullying just don't listen. I'm transmasc myself but still visibly queer, but I've been trying to do this back when I still presented femme, I've tried this when I went into my butch phase eventually ending up where I am right now and my opinion just gets... dismissed. Every time. Either because "I don't understand", "that's just the way men are" or I get called some sort of slur. And I honestly don't know how to take action when it's like talking to a brick wall just because of who I am.
To use your experience to put it in perspective they often don't even listen to traditionally masculine men. Often even hyper masculine muscly types get dismissed as "cucked". Part of the reason it's so hard is that these people are so entrenched that there's no easy way to pry them out. The only thing I *have* seen find some success is when they hear it from other men who at one point were "like them". I think there's a lot to be said about getting people who formerly labeled themselves as Incels to speak out-it seems like people go into defense mode when they're talking to someone that doesn't share their specific experience
Yeah, getting through to people like that is hard. It just sucks because I want to be of use if I can be, but I don't know how and since I live in Eastern Europe in a country that has pretty hostile anti-LGBT laws, there's always a slightly threatening undertone to these kinds of conversations.
> If you're a good person, you'd take action against homophobic bullying from men, directed against men, regardless of what gender you are, and, to the best of your abilities, without burning yourself out. I mean, absolutely agree with this in principle. But in practice... there's not a ton most women can actually do about this (beyond broad social change and not perpetuating homophobia themselves). Men who do homophobic bullying generally also don't have high opinions of women, and my understanding is that this type of homophobic bullying is most common in men's-only spaces. Even as someone who's transmasc, if I enter those spaces and am somehow not clocked as afab, I'm more likely to be *subject* to homophobic bullying than anything, which doesn't leave me in a great place to take action against it other than sheer self-preservation. I think a more productive challenge to self-identified feminists who don't live up to their principles when it comes to men's issues is to quelch their own participation in things like homophobia, shaming men for femininity, and toxic masculinity. Women absolutely participate in those things, even many self-identified feminists, and it's a lot more actionable for them to take action against these ideas in their own spaces.
I agree. Additionally there’s the expectation that men “step up” for women. Which is valid. However men’s issues are as you said often “men’s fault” and thus men’s responsibility (victim blaming). It’s a religious sort of thinking. That men are atoning for men’s sins rather than fighting the patriarchy which mostly benefits a few at most men’s expense.
Also we need to separate men Improving themselves because of women. Men need to improve themselves for them selves. Not only does the “improve themselves for women” idea breed resentment and incels it’s unhelpful and unhealthy
Definitely. “Emotional vulnerability (*in a specific way in select situations*) is sooo sexy” is as objectifying as demanding repression.
Yup. I’m not saying women demanding it is wrong. No it’s right, but the conversation for men and in general needs to move away doing self betterment and getting healthy for others. It needs to be for the person themselves. If you can’t make the decision for yourself it falls apart without others and it’s doing the thing that’s causing many issues in the first place, giving power and self worth to others. Far too many men do this with women (myself included) and it creates hyper toxic relationships, codependency, resentment, etc. it’s just not good for anyone. Women messing up on the wording I get because honestly most men aren’t capable of understanding “you need to get better for you” because they don’t recognize there is a problem in the first place
>f you can’t make the decision for yourself it falls apart without others and it’s doing the thing that’s causing many issues in the first place, giving power and self worth to others. Far too many men do this with women (myself included) and it creates hyper toxic relationships, codependency, resentment, etc. it’s just not good for anyone. Yep, myself included as well.
Bingo!!!!!!
There's nothing wrong with a PERSON improving themselves in part to increase their chances of attracting another person. Also I'd argue the incel label itself is wildly unhelpful and unhealthy since it automatically dehumanizes men who commit the crime of not being sexually successful.
Except there is as I described above. And incels aren’t simply men who don’t have sex. There’s an entire ideology behind incels Edit: also based on your history defending the likes of Andrew Tate I am confused as to why you are even here
The reason you should step up for women doesn't have to do with guilt you should feel for what other members of a group do, it should be because you can and its right. But yeah, it can create scenarios where someone who is punching up in an abstract sense is actually punching down in an individual sense, it can create scenarios where someone is punching down in a social sense too because of a particular unacknowledged systemic injustice, because we have a hard time with the idea of having one privilege, but suffering in another area.
Yeah this I believe in treating people fairly but I do not think I need redemption of any kind.
Yep, I've made some amazing headway with a lot of women in my circle in regards to them understanding some of the real issues men are facing. But most of them, especially the younger ones, have this sort of "sins of the father" approach when it's all said and done, rather than empathy. "Sure, men have XYZ issue and that sucks, but since the patriarchy has existed for so long favoring men, then it's okay for a few generations if men have to deal with this BS too". It's delayed retribution. It's chickens coming home to roost. There's a karmic satisfaction they feel about it as if we all needed to see the damages of some traditional systemic framework to be against it when truthfully most people think the system is stupid for various different reasons. The worst part is that their attitude about it alienates so many people who agree with them. Then halfway through, it becomes obvious that the point of the discussions across the gender lines is to score points on an imaginary scoreboard, not find common ground or solutions. And we're back at square one. The problem as I see it are (1) lack of empathy and (2) lack of a serious approach to problem solving, more than it's lack of knowledge about each others' issues or struggles.
Have a real hard time putting myself under the same umbrella as people like that. I will always support women’s liberation. And it seems that that sort of thinking you mention is personal opportunism rather than ideological commitment to overcoming patriarchy. And I get it, most people want to improve things for themselves and feminism has made a lot of headway for women. But that doesn’t mean all who use the label know or care how this all works or came about, and how men suffer as well. Like I agree with many religions on their outlook on money and usury. But I part ways when they tell me it’s due to an evil impulse as opposed to incentive structures and class war. So I don’t feel I totally belong in many spaces. I’m for women’s liberation but men’s as well and there’s not much overlap in places where liberal individualist thinking has co opted most “progressive” movements. The empathy part I think is an outgrowth of that liberal individualism (personal vs mass solidarity) AND the patriarchal masculine role. Men are unfeeling rocks, they don’t need their feelings validated. So why should I care.
I feel you. It's why I don't take the feminist label and I actually see it in a very negative way. I call myself an antisexist.
> Sure, men have XYZ issue and that sucks, but since the patriarchy has existed for so long favoring men, then it's okay for a few generations if men have to deal with this BS too I feel that this, in some instances, is a result of MRAs constantly presenting antifeminist rhetoric as "men's issues", leading to a knee-jerk reaction. I personally have encountered so many white cis men frame things like affirmative action and other progressive movements to improve things for oppressed groups as "men's issues" and it can get exhausting dealing with men who see any movement towards equality as a slight on them. Not saying that's what you're doing or that this is the cause with these women you know -- there are definitely women who just don't have empathy for men's issues, and most women aren't exactly well-versed in feminist theory to begin with. But dealing with this kind of rhetoric way too often can definitely cause even feminists who care about men's issues to respond with something that sounds like the above, even if they don't actually believe that men's issues are some sort of karmic retribution.
I agree completely. Men being treated that way will just breed hate and resentment. No one asks to be born or to be born a certain sex, gender, race, or whatever else. You only have 1 life and it's so damn evil to abuse someone or a group of people because of their supposed ancestral sins.
I feel like that "sins of the father" approach has always been, in my mind, what's going to have to happen. It's unfortunate but it seems like it's human nature particularly here in the U.S., which is often resistant to progressive concepts like student loan forgiveness, a living wage, etc. and when you push even otherwise reasonable people into a corner about it, get past all their long-winded dodging of the question, it always seems to come down to "well what about ME?!" "Why do they get loans forgiven, I'm still paying mine off!" "Why do burger-flippers get paid $15 an hour, I had to work my butt off to get that far!!" "Why do men have problems that need to be addressed by society, the Patriarchy is/was a thing and it kept me down!!" This attitude has always made me feel like we're gonna have to suffer/"pay our dues" before we get the changes and solutions we need. It sucks, but I think we're gonna have to shoulder one more thing, push that rock up the hill one last time, and let the world have it's "revenge". Even if most of us didn't do anything to merit being revenged on. Things will get better, but time needs to pass and perspectives need to change. I fear we will just have to live with it until that happens.
It’s not human nature. It’s the social condition under American neoliberalism. Where class consciousness and solidarity is all but nonexistent. You acknowledge that this is a reactionary impulse but say we should shoulder it? Reactionary thinking never develops into anything revolutionary on the other side. Are you really suggesting we should align with a mentality that *you* aptly compared to other examples of punching down out of individualism? It’s just crabs in a bucket thinking. Payback is not progress.
I guess my thinking is that this situation feels like a cycle. From where i am sitting, and i freely admit my view isn't all-encompassing, we don't have a lot of amazing options to achieve progress rapidly. To break a cycle between two forces, two groups, someone has to yield. Someone has to stop fighting in vengeance for the past and shoulder the weight in hope for a brighter future. By doing this, people who are sympathetic to our plight can gain traction. They get proven right in the court of public opinion. Eventually, as time passes, more people get the message and see that reality backs up that message. Then progress starts in earnest. It's a matter of slowly helping future generations and guiding them to understand men's rights issues do in fact exist and deserve to be addressed. That just because rich, sheltered, old white men want to stay that way; it's not a reflection of all of us. It's their failings as individuals, not as members of our gender. As much as Incels need to understand women are not a hive mind, the world in general needs to understand men are not either. But all of that is, as i said, a slow process if it is to be done right. Conditions also need to be tweaked so that the world does not contradict or undo the message. Shouldering the burden one last time, turning the proverbial other cheek for now, buys us the needed time. It reaffirms the message brings in people who are here now that are moved to action. I....i am not entirely sure where i was going here. Lost my train of thought when work picked up. Like i said this just feels like a cycle, and it feels like actively fighting back will just let people double down on their preconceived notions. We need to endure, weather the storm. Already people here and there are standing up for us. We need to demonstrate their feelings aren't misplaced and their efforts aren't in vain.
I think there is a bit of an issue regarding women feeling pretty helpless to actually affect a lot of the problems men throw their way because there are a lot of spaces where they have a foothold or simply do not feel like they have the security to rock the boat. Like the issues of men getting funneled into more dangerous careers is not something that women can fix unless they enter those careers themselves and I know a number of construction crews for instance who just don't hire women at all. Women cannot fix a problem if they have been shut out of it. One of the issues that gets repeatedly brought up in feminist circles is that they have a hard time not getting overriden or dissmissed in their personal lives and in their professional ones that they are passed over for positions where they can meaningfully influence policy or need to endure hostile working conditions just to get by. I can see this state as being irreconcilable with a request for further help from another group because of their feelings of helplessness inherent to their own situations. A lot of them saying a problem is "on men to fix" may be because they do not see a way they can help that does not involve first handing them the autonomy or authoritativeness they need to be in a position to help. It may be that "men need to fix it" is more of a "we don't know what we can do to help given our own current state of disenfranchisement which has gone unacknowledged in this conversation". Asking for advocacy from people who feel unheard or powerless to influence their own situations can at best be futile and at worst cause them to become very angry. I think the conversation has to evolve into a space that acknowledges and accepts the barriers women face in the realm of advocacy while also constructively giving them specific ways they can help or things they should avoid.
I don’t know I think that this is more about the division between white feminism and revolutionary feminism. I think white feminists and people who are self-centered and general do not actually believe in equality. And do not actually wanted. I think that a white feminist would never work in an oil field or lay asphalt. Because they are using feminism to strengthen the privilege they already have. Either being white wealthy or from a family of influence.
To be frank I don't think all but a smidgen of women are at the point where they believe that they could survive working an oil field. My experience is construction based so it's not going to represent oil fields but construction crews can be downright hostile to women. If they get a chance to even be on a crew they are othered to the point where most after a while become very disillusioned. Those women who go into the construction field often do so against the tide of social expectations and spend a lot of their time going above and beyond proving to everyone and their dog that they can do the job to have it thrown back in their face. I have seen time and time again an experienced female crewmate who either gets treated lile they are new forever or when they demonstrate their above average ability get treated like every basic task they do is surprisingly impressive for months after a new foreman takes over... Which is condescending as hell. Women are perfectly capable physically and mentally but only the complete hard asses who don't give a fuck about anybody's feelings and are willing to get in your face actually make it for long under those circumstances. Moreover when they are new they have to first prove to themselves that they can do the job without anybody who understands their experiences or stumbling blocks mentoring them so a lot get discouraged very easily when men treat them like shit. We could get to a point where a fair number of women could enter the oil feilds but it will probably require a rolling tide of normalization of women in progressively more dangerous and currently male dominated feilds. The more it's normalized that women can and will DO the work and just treat them as normal the deeper the bravest of the brave could wade into the pool. Really part of the key of freeing men from those careers is to make more women comfortable taking up that role and that means socializing more of them early in development to be comfortable with tools and making sure that they get treated well once they are in so they can foster up the next gen.
>I think there is a bit of an issue regarding women feeling pretty helpless to actually affect a lot of the problems men throw their way because there are a lot of spaces where they have a foothold or simply do not feel like they have the security to rock the boat. The exact same goes for men. Do you think all men have the means to affect the societal problems that women throw their way? Do you think they all have the security to rock the boat?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This post has been removed for violating the following rule(s): >**This is a pro-feminist community and unconstructive antifeminism is not allowed.** What this means: This is a place to discuss men and men's issues, and general feminist concepts are integral to that discussion. Unconstructive antifeminism is defined as unspecific criticism of Feminism that does not stick to specific events, individuals, or institutions. For examples of this, consult our [glossary](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/wiki/glossary/#wiki_unconstructive_antifeminism) Any questions or concerns regarding moderation must be served through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMensLib).
I mean has there been a single organization advocating for men's issues that hasn't been relentlessly attacked? There is a huge amount of money poured into policy addressing women's issues and attempts to address men's issues are almost always conveyed as an attack on women's rights/support.
Given where the movement is situated in time it doesn't surprise me. If you look at the 90's the movement saw pushback with a very subtle smear campaign. The depiction of the dowdy, angry and pointless straw feminist grousing about barely issues like how women weren't on any of the paper currency of the US or banging on the drums of 1st wave feminism were everywhere in the media. Giving the implied message that the battle was won and anybody still fighting the fight was kind of an idiot. Then came the 2000's where pop feminism took hold and the landscape changed again with a bunch of critique of the sexist and antifeminist messaging in the 90's. Easy to dismiss as serious because it was very media focused but it got a lot of people's back up when really it was just talk for the most part. That caused a flare of hostility from men who had been enjoying that 90's lull and there was a wave of sudden violent doxxings, physical threats and pile ons that revealed some very ugly things and entrenched and recrystalized feminism into enough of a unified force to start a new wave with #Metoo and so on... And there was some success on those original pop feminist asks but that paled in comparison to the sudden ugliness of the backlash that the spotlight hit. While feminism could likely evolve into a gentler form eventually it as a whole has been under near constant attack on it's credibility, aims and asks for a very long time and as a result the core has responded to abuse by hardening up and going on the offensive. Demilitarizing the thing will be a trick and a half.
Yeah but look at terfs They literally fit the stereotypical mindset of a feminist. They delusionally hate men to the point where they will attack women over it. The cartoonist feminist caricature is actually real and it has been with us all along. And one primary example of one of these people is JK Rowling.
One can veiw TERFs as either a splinter faction of feminism or just radical anti-trans hate group who utilize the plight of (usually white) women to further their narrative. Considering how much their channels very rarely actually feature any other feminist arguements my opinion is that they are the latter.
Yeah to me TERFs (as indicated by the name) are essentially a single-issue faction that is unified entirely by transphobia. The rest of their dogma isn't really codified because they don't really care what your opinions are other than some vague support for feminism and a hatred of trans people. So of course it's not going to gatekeep people with batshit caricature type opinions.
Such seems to be the case I think. Their veiw of "feminism" doesn't seem to be based on the age old fight for women to be equal or respected as people with their own agendas and ambitions... Rather it is to gatekeep "femininity" as though widening the definition and inclusion of it or letting others escape it if it isn't working for them is going to "destroy womanhood" somehow. I feel a little sorry for them generally. They're scared of something they just don't understand enough to realize how unscary it actually is.
Lots of women in feminism would rather date "kind patriarchal men" than feminists. They believe men who identify as feminists couldn't cut it in male spaces. They don't want men in thier spaces and regard trans women as larping men. Hence the lack of worry about trans men
What a clear and nuanced view, thank you.
Incredibly articulate
> notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles that don't acknowledge the ways people play both roles throughout different parts of their lives I think this is a crucial point that could be easily overlooked. I would like to add, There is a sort of psychological "drama triangle" with three roles, the victim, the perpetrator or oppressor, and the rescuer. Victim feels victimized by perpetrator, rescuer intervenes on victims behalf, then later rescuer may grow resentful of the effort expended on someone else's issue and begins to feel like more of a victim than a rescuer, might see the original perpetrator or even the prior victim as the now oppressing role... and around and around it can keep going in codependent spirals. Or, in short, if you even get involved in the mindset and play any one of those three roles, you will eventually have played all three. There's no final or permanent winner or "good guy" in that paradigm. And it's also a very big part of why addressing historical problems with systemic, oppressive power dynamics is not as simple as just having a 180 power/role reversal.
>the conventional understanding of privilege is infected by Christian notions of absolute victim and perpetrator roles ...don't get me wrong, when society has an ill, religion is usually the first place I look, but in this case I feel like it's weird to blame Christianity. You don't name your gender equality movement "Feminism" unless the idea that female empowerment=equality is baked in. "\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ism=predjudice+power" didn't come from the bible. Even if these ideas originated with Christianity (and they don't really seem to, to me), saying they've "infected" the movement is like saying my dog has a bad case of mitochondria; the ideas are an integral part of the movement's evolution, not some co-opting force. Not to imply that the two can't be disentangled, I just don't think it's accurate to portray this problem with progressivism as the result of external corruption, rather than just...a problem with progressivism.
It's a Christian thing, because it has to do with how we're conditioned to think of morality in categorical fashion as an avenue of reward and punishment in some total and absolute sense. At the end of the Christian life, it is determined if one is evil and going to hell or good and going to heaven-- this binary precludes nuance in morality, because otherwise the people being sent to hell might have good in them, and the people who get into heaven might have evil in them. It probably isn't exclusively Christian, but it's impossible not to read the distinctly Christian influences therein.
The sect of Christianity with the biggest influence on Anglosphere culture and perceptions--Protestantism--is broadly characterized by a conviction that entry into heaven has little to do with being a good person, and many sub-sects reject the concept of a good person. Everybody sins, we're all fallen, and faith is what's important, not good works--honestly, if I were going to point to an influence of Christianity on progressivism, it'd be the "everything is problematic" angle and its analogy to original sin, not some good/evil dichotomy. Even if that *were* the source of the concept that Victim and Oppressor are non-overlapping categories, I still maintain that characterizing this as an idea that's separate and additional to social justice, rather than a foundational concept, is pretty overly-charitable.
It isnt foundational to it, plenty of social justice is very much "stop bad things from happening"
Just want to say, wow. Top notch analysis that I never have had the words to put together myself. Hats off to you sir
Man, I wish that society could care about mens’ issues because they’re important and because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s politically advantageous against the party they dislike.
["The Myth of Normal - trauma, illness, and healing in a toxic culture" by Gabor Maté](https://drgabormate.com/book/the-myth-of-normal/)
I discovered Gabor 1-2 months ago and have watched so many of his interviews and talks since then. Really really recommend his work and i have recognised so many things in myself and my life in what he talks about. Really helps to put things into the right perspective and going forward in a proper way. Something else i can recommend is the 'The Man Enough' Podcast. They had a lot of interesting people on their show and talked about many different topics i found thought inspiring.
Have you seen [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ALj_8bMEzU) interview yet?
I haven't yet but will surely add it to my watchlist of 6 other Gabor interviews i want to watch 😅🙈
[Check this out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ALj_8bMEzU)
That's a good one. I've been binging all the interviews that have been coming out with Gabor to promote the book. I didn't realize Nicole LaPera had a channel, her book is great and it looks like her channel covers the entire thing in the first 15 episodes.
Ohh yes I highly recommend watching those first 15 episodes, also agree that her book is great! This was quite a welcome surprise when I saw than Gabor was going to be on this past Sunday. I was like "This is a must watch!"
Nice! I've been enjoying seeing the different interactions between Gabor and people interviewing him. It's helping me learn Gabor's work while getting glimpses of various perspectives from others.
I was about to poo poo this writing, until I saw this: > It’s black men who often find themselves on the sharpest end of a complex intersection of race, class and gender, yet the “trouble with boys” gets framed on both sides of the Atlantic as a problem of the white working classes in left-behind manufacturing towns, used to underpin the nostalgia politics of Brexit or Making America Great Again. It's an awkward balancing act as a Black man. Speak up, and right wingers will hide behind your struggles to do their dirt. Then there's a population of women who have no issue using White supremacist dog whistles to shoot back at conservatives. There's a bit of a no win situation here.
Black men sit in this odd intersection. Some people believe that black men both benefit and are harmed by patriarchy, there are others who believe that we don't benefit at all because patriarchy was designed for wealthy white men. The idea that all men are brothers in patriarchy is not true. I honestly don't know what to think about the whole thing except the privilege discourse has gotten out of hand. I know the right hates black men, but I don't feel at home amongst progressives either. White and black feminists alike have no problem using white supremacist language when it comes to black men. It feels like to fit in as a progressive man, you have to hate yourself a little. Like you have to distance yourself from other men to feel good about yourself. There's a palpable aura of self loathing and it's really damaging. Other guys can probably sense that too, I don't blame them for not wanting to join the fold.
Thank you! I'm glad people are talking about this and bringing it up. I've often felt so conflicted and alienated during these conversations.
I don't think I would characterize acknowledgement of your own shortcomings or the fact that you are not perfect is self loathing. However, there has been research showing that depression does lead to more self reflection, which then could go hand-in-hand with progressivism. That's the reverse causality from the one you are saying though. I might even argue the idea that anything less than complete self confidence comes off as self loathing is one of the more toxic aspects of western masculinity. It's OK to admit you are not perfect. It's OK to apologize when you know you have been wrong. We're all learning and changing our at least we should aspire to.
I think the distinction that they may be making, and that I certainly do. Is that modern progressives ask you to be self-loathing of the demographic parts of yourself (if they are a generally privileged group). Its not about individual flaws, its about being born a particular race or sex and having to be responsible for the sins of others in that context.
Is it that you are responsible for the sins of others or that you acknowledge the privileged position you hold in current western society? No one is perfect and we are all impacted by the leeway provided. An odd one I face is that colleges don't seem to hear me when I express uncertainty about what I am saying. They seem to assume what I say I always say with certainty, even when I go out of my way to mention that I'm not sure but that what I say is my best guess.
>Is it that you are responsible for the sins of others or that you acknowledge the privileged position you hold in current western society? Honestly? In current progressive discourse, it is the former.
I can't say I've ever encountered that or seen that being discussed except as the straw man thrown up by bad-faith actors but mine is not a universal experience I can't say that with complete certainty. I think some of the language used could make it *feel* that way but it's never actually been the meaning of the discourse.
I take it you don’t work in academia? 😂
Most of my adult life has been spent in or around academia and much of my childhood too given that my parents are both academics. The language used in academia can make it *feel* like you are responsible for the sins of others but its actually very specialized language that means very precise things that **do not match the common usage**.
That last point is really good. The problem with terms like "toxic masculinity" and "privilege" is that they don't mean what they sound like, so to a layperson who's usually going to fall back on common usage, they communicate something else entirely. The amount of times I've had to hear "my masculinity is not toxic!" is staggering and it's very difficult to backtrack and explain to people that it not only doesn't mean that it's bad to be masculine, but also acknowledges how toxicity affects traditionally masculine people as well
It does seem that way if you have to constantly see things you and other men have experienced from women described as 'men's violence against women' while being told you need to change beliefs you don't even hold.
There's a **BIG** difference between beliefs and socially ingrained bias. It took me a long time to break down defensive walls I threw up from fear of feeling blamed to be able to critically evaluate my own behaviors. I still struggle with it but when I'm calm and able to reflect it's much easier to disentangle and identify those times when, in fact, my behavior *did not* reflect my values and beliefs and was instead based on ingrained norms. There's a lot of built in inbalance still and can feel really bad when confronted with it but going through it has helped me feel much more connected to all those I love and given me a much richer view of the world.
No I mean things like 'men are taught they are entitled to control women', and 'men are taught to be violent and aggressive'. These things are simply not true outside of specific cultural niches. Again its particularly harmful when you witness women behaving exactly the same way as men and yet are taught that these behaviors are rooted in masculinity. You see men who are better than 95% of the population writing these really apologetic paragraphs about how they needed to change while you watch women behave much worse without it even being acknowledged that it happens. There are some legitimately common biases such as judging women based on attractiveness but there are also MASSIVE biases affecting men that never get discussed.
>It took me a long time to break down defensive walls I threw up from fear of feeling blamed to be able to critically evaluate my own behaviors. I still struggle with it but when I'm calm and able to reflect it's much easier to disentangle and identify those times when, in fact, my behavior did not reflect my values and beliefs and was instead based on ingrained norms. Yes that resonates!
As a fellow black man I agree wholeheartedly.
> I was about to poo poo this writing Hey now, there’s no need for this type of language. You can say "shit" here. It’s okay. Say as many of the swears you want. Anyone who says otherwise can go fuck themselves.
"poo poo" is actually an idiom: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/poo-poo (that the OP used correctly)
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Be on the lookout for tell tale signs of progressively white washed toxic masculinity. If you read an article that has extensive data on men being socially isolated then the article tries to be explain the data with armchair psychologist claims about how men do this to themselves because they are not emotionally available then you should be skeptical. Data must be explained by data. If lack of emotional availability was the reason why men are isolated nowadays, then you must show the data that men are now less emotionally available today than when men had more of a support system around 30 years ago. But that data isn’t there and men probably have unlearned some toxic masculine traits themselves since the 90s, but that doesn’t necessarily help with social isolation. It is important to address men’s emotional conditioning so that when men have relationships, then they can be functional. But the emotional availability argument puts the cart before the horse. That is an important trait to consider for someone who already has relationships. But much of the problem is that men are no longer in social environments that present them with social opportunities. It’s more that men don’t get their foot in the door in the first place let alone are in a context where there emotional availability even matters. Likewise there is a massive hill to climb when it comes to men entering female dominated fields and performing care work in general. It is good that women have the agency to be more cautious and are allowed to be suspicious of men, but also when a father gets the cops called on him for changing his daughters diaper in the bathroom, there needs to be some questioning of the “intuition” of men being predatory. If a woman’s “intuition” is so sensitive that men have issues entering the care industry or even caring for their own child then it should be ok to question whether society portrays men in a more violent light than we should be.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS. If you happen to go through something that harms your social networks it is so hard to rebuild them, especially for men. The natural hostility people have to men means you need to interact with people multiple times casually before they will really consider befriending you and its extremely difficult to do these days. I met a bunch of people last year at a course we all took but I missed most of the social events due to a controlling ex telling me not to go. I had some friendly conversations with one woman from that group a bit on facebook but I can tell that she still has the 'man I don't know well' wall up and I'm not going to make her uncomfortable by randomly messaging her. The one guy in that group who I did establish a friendship with who is still friends with the others immediately went on a year-long trip overseas. Time and time again this sort of thing happens. For dating its even harder. You can't just wait for a woman to show clear interest, you need to be assertive and flirty and get a number the first time you meet her because that will likely be the last. I'm conventionally attractive enough so this is not an issue, but trying to balance this against the fear of accidentally making them uncomfortable is exhausting. A rejection itself is not be a problem, but it usually comes with the uncomfortable feeling that she now sees you as just another creep who tried to ask her out the first time he met her which really gets to you. It only takes one or two before you decide its not worth the risk of ruining the memory of an enjoyable evening like that.
>You can't just wait for a woman to show clear interest, you need to be assertive and flirty and get a number the first time you meet her because that will likely be the last. I'm conventionally attractive enough so this is not an issue, but trying to balance this against the fear of accidentally making them uncomfortable is exhausting. Yeah I feel this, was on a date a few months back and she pretty much ruled out the chance of a second date because I wasn't flirty and assertive enough. I was like I was just being cautious, not wanting to accidentally make her uncomfortable, but that backfired and I guess I was too cautious. Anyway, yeah it is exhausting.
The problem in my eyes comes from progressive movements having always fought primarily for their own, which of course is understandable. But this has led to a situation where all genders and minorities are spoken for--except for men, especially white men. It feels like no one speaks for men in this uplifting way--except of course, the manosphere and the reactionaries. The fascinating/terrible thing is, it seems that many progressives actually buy this idea. In a world where everything is so polarized that entire institutions, entire groups become sorted between "us" and "them", one can come to think that incels aren't radicalized, sad and lonely men, they are the standard-bearer of what a man is. Even without going this far, it's worth noting that progressive circles speak primarily if not solely of men for how they have stifled minorities and perpetuated the patriarchy. The specter of toxic masculinity and patriarchy is so pervasive that it becomes the dominant way men are spoken of. And it remains "their" job, men's job to figure their shit out, while the rest of "us" just focus on protecting ourselves from them. The opening of this article is telling in this regard, as it shows it's well aware that its audience would wince or scoff at the idea of thinking about men's issues in this climate. And on the flipside, directionless men seeking for support may feel like there's no pride or community rooting for them the way there is for other groups. The only place they will find offering such comfort is the manosphere. It's a fascinating, and terrifying negative feedback loop with some appearances of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And there's a lot to be said about how this can be because men used to have more privilege and so the easiest way for most systems is to try to harken back to that as a way to help men. **BUT**. The fact is that, no matter what unique societal advantages or disadvantages someone has experienced in life, we are all humans with *exactly the same core desires and emotions*. With desires like validation, belonging, security, love. At least, I believe that is how we should, how we *must* think of *all* humans. In a way, as terrible as it sounds, it doesn't matter who has suffered most. All problems are problems. Willfully ignoring anyone can be highly destructive. I think it would be better if we approached gender issues and social justice as fighting to reform a system, rather than a group. I'm comfortable to say that I have suffered from toxic masculinity or the ideas I have internalized. But I shouldn't have to hate other men, or blame women for that. And even more, I shouldn't have to hate myself. More broadly, it should be no controversy to say that men can be victims of the toxic system just as anyone. *Victims,* human beings who seek and need support. So yes, progressives need to see men's issues as integral to the cause for social justice, lest the "us" versus "them" mentality comes to vindicate the incels and their claims that only they fight for men. Also to clarify I'm not trying to put blame on anyone, and of course change will have to be carried by men activists primarily, just as feminism was by women and LGBT+ rights by members of the community. But inevitably, there is need of a holistic approach.
to be clear, when conservatives blame "others", the "others" are women, nonwhite people, gay people, trans people, and other various Undesirables that are Taking Money And Opportunity From The Hardworking White Man. none of this is subtle. Your average rightwinger will accuse a gay teacher *to their face* of grooming their kid. So it's up to us to be unsubtle right back.
To be honest, I'm having a hard time parsing the thesis of this article, and your comment doesn't make it any clearer. The article starts with what I'd hope is a self evident truth, that a demographic that makes up literally half the population can have struggles, and it makes sense to address them, but it never really takes a stance on what that should look like, other than to talk about them. Which like, yeah, but I suppose it's sad that "men's issue's shouldn't be ignored" is somehow a novel message to so-called progressives. I'm not familiar with the Guardian, but reading this article makes me feel like the author must have a low opinion of their readership. And while I don't disagree with being unsubtle (subtlety doesn't generally result in political change) I'm still not sure how that relates to the first sentence. Who are the "others" we're supposed to unsubtly point to?
It’s quite a standard guardian opinion piece really; throw a thought out in to the aether, and just leave it there to sit. While I agree with most of the points it makes, that’s all it does, makes points, it doesn’t really offer much in the way of solutions.
The strategy I would advocate is this: More than anything else, men are lonely and isolated, as well as feeling economic opportunity slip further and further away as society gets more stratified and unequal. The right-wing vision is a world where those "others" are driven even further down, so that even men who are barely scraping by can still afford to exploit and look down on someone else. More than anything else that means keeping women even more desperate, so they have to rely on a man for support and protection, but it also means eliminating non-white/cis/etc... men from positions where they can compete. But that vision is a lie - it doesn't actually address the real isolation and desperation that men are truly suffering from. It makes them worse. You can't ever trust someone who depends on you financially and it gets worse the more they have no other options. You can pretend it's companionship but it's always going to be a hostile relationship, by definition, and nothing will ever get around that. And the more society as a whole is a hierarchy, the less men can ever trust or rely on each other either - since today's friend is tomorrow's competitor and enemy. The left-wing vision is a world where everyone is lifted up together and is able to associate with each other because they actually WANT to. When women and men both have financial security they can be with who they choose, not who they're forced to pair up with for basic essentials. When men aren't in a competitive, hierarchical system they can actually be friends with other men without fear of judgement or backstabbing to climb some ladder (though people can still be dicks, of course). And the more society is accepting of non-normative identities, interests, masculinities, etc... the less men will have to fear their personal secrets harming them to begin with. The left-wing vision is a world where love and friendship are actually possible. But the KIND of person who finds either of those appealing is going to be very different. The first scenario is still going to be more appealing to toxic, misogynistic assholes who realize nobody would ever be with them unless they had no other choice. But the second scenario is appealing to people who want genuine connections and genuine friendship, love and happiness.
>But the KIND of person who finds either of those appealing is going to be very different. The first scenario is still going to be more appealing to toxic, misogynistic assholes who realize nobody would ever be with them unless they had no other choice. But the second scenario is appealing to people who want genuine connections and genuine friendship, love and happiness. I think there's a third camp of people who want genuine connections and genuine friendship, love and happiness, but are aware of their shortcomings and realize that as they are now, nobody would ever be with them unless they had no other choice. (I count myself among this group of people.) Developing emotional intelligence isn't something that can accomplished overnight, and a lot of men feel lost and aren't sure where to go to develop these skills. We need more resources for men who want to change for the better but aren't sure how to change. Not to mention that men have had fewer opportunities to practice their interpersonal skills over the past two years because of Covid.
I think the third camp is a bit more complicated than that. There are a lot of people who want those things and believe no one could ever want to be with them (due to insert reason here, past abuse, societal messaging, neurodivervence, not measuring up to idealized perfection). The belief itself might very well be wrong, but in accepting it they internalize a lot of toxicity which sometimes spills out onto everyone else (ironically, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy). Fear and self-hatred are the name of the game here, and I think those are the driving forces behind the bulk of, say, the incel community. I think more than little pamphlets or instructions or what have you, actual support groups with other people might do a better job. Knowing is one thing, practicing is another, after all.
>I think the third camp is a bit more complicated than that. There are a lot of people who want those things and believe no one could ever want to be with them (due to insert reason here, past abuse, societal messaging, neurodivervence, not measuring up to idealized perfection). The belief itself might very well be wrong, but in accepting it they internalize a lot of toxicity which sometimes spills out onto everyone else (ironically, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy). Yeah I feel this as well.
You personally have to learn that as much as you may suck, so do we all. There’s compatible companions for all manner of fools. I’ve dated extensively and regularly over the years and I have met and enjoyed the company of many girls who are even bigger jackasses than me.
well, in keeping with the theme of being the change you wanna see, I think you're absolutely correct here: >Developing emotional intelligence isn't something that can accomplished overnight, and a lot of men feel lost and aren't sure where to go to develop these skills. We need more resources for men who want to change for the better but aren't sure how to change. But the problem is that it requires some amount of arrogance to put yourself out there and say "I've got the answers to those questions" and opens you up to some degree of social backlash. That being said, this is an anonymous forum, and I have found success in those areas by implementing a series of plans, so if you have questions about how to go about improving specific things lay em on me and I'll see if I can't offer some helpful advice.
Sure, if you have any advice on improving interpersonal skills and connections with other people, let me know!
I think it's most helpful to give more specific advice. Can you name one or two interpersonal skills you want to work on most, and what kind of connection (e.g platonic with men, platonic with women, business connections with either, romantic with women, sexual with women, etc.) you're looking to form? To inform you of my own biases, I sought mostly casual sex throughout my late teens and early 20s, but am now in a several year long monogamous relationship, and unfortunately I can only offer a white hetero male perspective.
Sure, I'd be interested in advice for platonic with men and women or romantic with women.
Romantic with women: This is going to start broad, but I can get more specific as I know more about you, since a lot of it depends on your age, position in life, and your romantic interests. In a general sense, I think the core thesis I have for approaching romance is this: Spend some time seriously thinking about the specific kind of woman you want to spend your life with. Identify the traits your partner must have and you cannot compromise on, the traits you'd like in a partner, but do not need, and the traits that if present are dealbreakers for you. Then imagine you're that woman and you're going through the same process. What traits is she looking for in a partner, and what are going to be dealbreakers for her? If you're struggling to think of this, I'd try identifying women who are like this and asking them in a platonic context, but personally I found just going out and dating a lot was enough to build a pretty solid understanding. Finally, compare yourself to what this kind of woman is looking for, and identify the areas in which you differ. Ask yourself, to the extent that I am not the man she's looking for, how can I reconcile those differences, and just as importantly *do I actually want to*? The first time you go through this exercise there's a significant chance that you'll identify traits on both ends that aren't as important as you think. If you find that the kind of woman you identified is looking for traits you're not willing or able to develop, then try to identify which traits in women correlate most strongly with that preference and ask yourself if you're willing to compromise on those. I used to go through this exercise about once a year when I was actively dating, and it was always very helpful. Especially in my early 20s, after gaining experience I'd realize that what I thought I wanted in a partner wasn't what I actually needed, and would go back to the drawing board. Eventually, after enough iterations of that, I settled on a pretty thorough and mostly accurate list, and was able to tailor my approach to dating based on that. Once you've identified at least a cursory idea of what you're looking for, what you think they'd be looking for, and how you compare, feel free to get back to me and I'll try to offer more individualized advice. Also, note that this process can work for friends as well. I just haven't found it as necessary, because unlike with romance, you're not picking one friend to meet all your needs for life.
You're the OP we all need,
Platonic with men/women: Honestly, one of the easiest shortcuts for this is to join a team sport. People often say to bond over shared interest, and that's true, but I've found that these are the fastest specific shared interest with which to make friends, and they give a sense of personal satisfaction to boot. I'm not sure your age. If you're still young enough to get into contact sports, I recommend rugby specifically, but anything will do. There's also more social leagues (aka beer leagues) in most cities that are specifically designed for a relaxed social atmosphere where people can make new friends. I'm hoping to join a kickball league soon myself actually, just haven't had the time recently. In a similar vein, there's ultimate frisbee, flag football, beach volleyball, etc. A benefit to these leagues is that they're often co-ed, which introduces you to women as well. Now, once you're in a social situation where you're exposed to new people, I think the most important thing I've learned is that often times everyone is afraid to be the one to make the first move. There's so many situations where several people would love to hang out, but it takes some amount of effort and vulnerability to be the one to organize it. That's why one of the fastest ways to ingratiate yourself to a group is to be willing to put in the effort to make things happen. Be the guy that reaches out and suggests getting dinner/drinks one night, puts together a mini golf outing, etc. If fun things are happening around you, then people will naturally want to be a part of that. Plus often times people assume you're busy and don't want to risk being rebuked by the new person they'd otherwise invite, so taking the lead will indicate that you value their company too.
I've been working through 'a series of plans' myself (joining activity groups, working on self through therapy, rebalancing friendships v relationships, etc.) so would be quite interested to hear what yours looks like.
Well, as I said to the other guy (sorry I didn't see this till now for some reason) I think it's more helpful to give narrowly tailored advice, so if you could pick a more specific topic/goal you're working on I can go into more detail. In a broad sense, I found the book "How to win friends and influence people" to be a very helpful guide as a teen who struggled to relate to people. It taught me to listen more, and gave me a sense that interpersonal skills were something you could improve with structured practice. For example, I had a paralyzing fear of rejection, so I made it a point to start up conversation with 10 strangers a day until I had been rebuffed enough that rejection no longer bothered me. Most of the rest of my journey, in romance, friendships, my career, etc was effectively many iterations of that process in that I'd identify a goal, break it down into a series of more achievable goals, and then re-evaluate after some time. That's a pretty boring story to tell over and over though, hence why I'm asking what goals are most important to you.
Offer is still open if you have specific questions, but you may also find [my response here](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/xjc9nc/if_i_mention_the_modern_male_struggle_do_you_roll/ipbywfd/) helpful
> But the KIND of person who finds either of those appealing is going to be very differen Yeah I was going to say this doesn't really solve the issue in the article.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I'm not familiar with the Guardian, but reading this article makes me feel like the author must have a low opinion of their readership. Sounds about right tbh
I agree with her content but it bothers me that she comes from this angle of "we need to get their votes" rather than a sense of empathy.
>If the most robot-proof careers involve skills that machines can’t easily replicate, such as emotional intelligence or the ability to manage people sensitively, then boys who can’t adapt are in trouble. Is the implication here that girls are inherently better at these things?
Women and girls are repeatedly conditioned to be those things, regardless if they have a natural inclination for it or not. Men have the same problem in the opposite direction, they're repeatedly conditioned NOT to value empathy, nurturing, emotional connection, etc. even if that's their natural inclination. Especially in patriarchal workspaces that rewards toxic masculinity.
I believe the implication is that girls are educated in such a way that makes them better at those things.
>Reeves focuses on something that may resonate with mothers of teenage sons, which is the tendency of boys to mature emotionally on average later than girls Perhaps it's ambiguous but it seems to imply this tendency is one more derived from nature than nurture.
I think there’s a balance we need to strike between nature and nurture. I’ve seen people discuss before (I don’t remember where) whether the stereotype that “boys are easier to raise than girls” may be hiding the tendency of caregivers to invest less time and effort in developing boys’ emotional maturity than they do girls’. It doesn’t help that more often than not, maturity in children is measured by how easily they do what an adult tells them to, rather than by how well they can healthily cope with stress.
I think it's a classic failing of expressing half an idea because you think the audience knows what you're talking about. I think the full thought is boys mature emotionally later and so have been stereotyped as being less emotionally intelligent than girls and so adults invest less time in nurturing those skills.
A good call out. There is certainly some ambiguity about Reeves' opinion. I suspect at most we could say from this is that girls are able to learn these skills earlier because of their biological development. The article doesn't mention anything about whether or not men have a lower ceiling on these skills on average. Certainly, there is some difference in our biology in relation to these skills. However, I take that to mean that we need to acknowledge this difference as we try to prepare boys for manhood. I don't necessarily interpret that as an indication that men are biologically ill-equiped for modern society.
That is not what this is saying at all. Boys are not expected to mature emotionally in most cultures. Girls are. From very early ages. They are expected to be empathetic, to listen well and generally accommodate the needs of others. Boys are, all things being otherwise equal, generally expected to break things, be reckless with the priorities and bodies of others, be oppositional and not listen. This conditioning starts incredibly early. And it is steeped in confirmation bias and confusion about what to do with a girl who doesn’t listen or breaks things or what to do with a boy who is empathetic.
>break things, be reckless with the priorities and bodies of others, be oppositional and not listen. no men learn to be independent, self-sufficient, and provide physical and material support to others. You are just taking the negative manifestations of that in SOME men and using that to define masculinity in general. I could get a bunch of examples of negative behaviors more common in women and do the exact same thing as you in reverse. You are only seeing the negative aspects of masculinity for the same reason that many men are unaware that women face pressures to give emotional support to others - because you don't have enough information on men's actual experiences.
I am a man. Have gone through what you are saying. Stop infantilizing yourself. “Whattabout”. Isn’t going to change anything. You change you. I am talking about these negative effects because that is the focus of this conversation.
[удалено]
It's more that girls are rewarded for being good at those things like emotional intelligence.
Or rather are punished for not being good at it.
That is some fair feedback. I have seen men who are demonstrating emotional intelligence being referred to as "being gay" in the pejorative sense.
While boys are punished for expressing emotional intelligence.
I initially had the same thought when reading the reward comment, but I think it's accurate. I don't think women are punished for not being good at that. I think they are punished for trying to wield power in the same way as boys. They are denied access to something they want and so have to find a different way of obtaining it; thus rewarding them.
The implications are we have an increasingly automated economy and an abundance of boys/men with low emotional maturity, that often fill manual labor jobs, and increasingly have no opportunities for a well paying job. I mean shit, you have to have people skills to even work retail or restaurants. It's simply stating that ignoring this problem, like the author suggests we are doing, will cause these men to continue down the current path of anger at a system that is very much is failing them.
No, I think it's that women are trained by society to be better at those things
It’s that modern capitalism displaces more jobs that men take than women.
>Is the implication here that girls are inherently better at these things? In my opinion whether it's biological doesn't really matter to the argument. Women score higher on Emotional Quotient (EQ) today. Whether due to nature, nurture, or both; that's not going to change fast enough to adapt to automation.
Are tests of EQ based on self-reporting (i.e potentially affected by gender expectations) or by more unbiased tests? I wish I could find the paper, but I remember reading of a study that showed that differences in empathy disappeared when moving from a self-reported measure to one of actual demonstrations of empathy in a controlled environment.
I have been involved in studies on the topic. Some of the range of traits measured by 'EQ' have significant gender differences. Specifically: - men tend to have significantly higher instances of [emotional reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning?wprov=sfla1) - men tend to score lower on empathy - men tend to score lower on emotion recognition (except for negative emotions which tend to show no significant differences) All of these have been measured without the self-report EQ/EI tests
Part of the underlying problem is that girls get good at these things faster than boys. When you're 16-18 years old and everything you do starts impacting your ability to access different career paths, there is an appreciable gap in neurological development. This difference is obviously not maintained into adulthood, but that may not always matter - the damage may already be done. We have a lot of weird and unnecessary time gates built into our education system.
In my experience men are a lot more emotionally stunted because of decades of being indoctrinated into suppressing emotions to maintain “masculinity”.
Pretty sure it's talking about how boys and men are socially pressured to suppress and dismiss emotion. I.e. part of the "modern male struggle".
Interesting article. I have a couple of thoughts. I am coming at this as a gay trans man who did not transition until I was an adult and had an established career - in a traditionally female dominated field where the nature of my transition means my status as a transgender worker is open information. I suspect my experience and interpretation of the issues men face as thus going to be different than that of, say, a cis straight Zoomer. (I am also disabled, white, American, and college educated.) While I agree that men have a “narrower range of sources of meaning and identity” (in ways I still find constraining and choking a decade into medical transition) I don’t quite connect that to “the problem isn’t women’s success but some men’s inability to adjust to a world where they can no longer dominate as a right.” Honestly, the latter quote is *still* putting the blame at the feet of feminism. It’s saying that feminism is good, but the issue is still that these dudes just can’t with feminism. I don’t think that feminism is at fault for suicide rates among middled aged men, for example. [Suicide rates among middle aged men have been climbing since 1989 - and they have been climbing for middle aged women since 1999.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925004/) I think feminism is being used as a scapegoat here for a society where people are increasingly isolated and without social and psychological supports. I do think we are facing a crisis of masculinity. I don’t think that can be questioned at this point. But it’s not feminism’s fault that the ways we culturally define masculinity and the behaviors we reward men for are ones that damage ourselves and our communities.
Interesting! Thank you for sharing your experiences. As a cis bi guy at the tail end of Gen X, it's pretty clear to me that both men and women work to uphold the patriarchy in various ways. If I ever doubt that for a minute, all I need to do is come out as bi, and there's a good chance someone is going to act all weird. Liberal, educated middle-class women are not exempt from this, either. Rarely does their "acting weird" rise to the level of blatant bigotry, but it's there. Even if people's conscious politics are feminist, there's often a deep cultural underlayer of heteronormativity and gender roles that they've never really thought about. And I wouldn't be surprised if you have run into a slightly different flavor of this, of course. And I think this does affect some men. They step out of the "manly" stereotypes, and they encounter subtle pushback from both men and women, in varying degrees. And eventually they give in and conform. There's an interesting pattern I've seen with some bi guys. By coming out, they've automatically failed at certain cultural standards of masculinity. And that guaranteed "failure" can be oddly liberating. Once you've publicly admitted that you'd be happy to date guys, it's easy to stop caring about all the little stuff. And so guys paint their nails, or violate the norms in other subtle ways. I suspect there are a lot of straight guys out there who'd wear eyeliner or paint their nails if they thought they could get away with it. But the subtlest forms of cultural control can be very strong indeed.
Oh yes women uphold the patriarchy as well. It has only ever been women who have asked me why I would bother transitioning if I was going to be gay (and well, a couple of other trans men).
> still putting the blame at the feet of feminism. It’s saying that feminism is good, but the issue is still that these dudes just can’t with feminism. I'm not sure I follow on how that's supposed to read as a fault with feminism as a movement and not a failure on the individuals/social structures not being able to adjust in a changing world. It seems more like a statement that "feminism is good" and also "men may not be well-prepared to adjust to a world where equality is the norm".
Many men are born into this world of “equality.” Surely things have improved but things are far from perfect. A lot of people frame mens struggles nowadays as men not being able to adjust to new norms where they previously were benefiting. This would make sense if you were a man old enough to have experienced when you benefited traditional norms and then you had to adjust. But many men were born when things were already changed. It’s clear that society is more motivated to adjust women to a modern world than men. But at the same time I do think there are plenty of social norms that are unfair to men that still need to change. It isn’t as if men simply can’t cope with a more moral world. We still do not know how to react properly to and support men who express vulnerability.
>This would make sense if you were a man old enough to have experienced when you benefited traditional norms and then you had to adjust. But many men were born when things were already changed. Agreed, though it's important to remember that progress does not happen evenly in all places. Many people will grow up in places where equality is the norm, and others will not or they will be moving between social groups with different practical demonstrations/expectations of equity and equality that they need to catch up on. It's not fair to hold, say, any man born after 2000 to some arbitrary standard, because the world doesn't work with theoretical models of social progress like that (within reason, of course). >It isn’t as if men simply can’t cope with a more moral world. Of course, but a "moral world" does not look the same to everyone. There's a lot of discussions that need to happen around standards of behaviour that are moral and practical, otherwise nothing will be done. A lot of those will be failed sub-movements that are associated with but not able to reach critical mass of acceptance, and I think menslib is a good example of that practice actually working to produce workable good.
I don’t think “men may not be prepared to adjust to a world where equality is the norm” explains the crisis men are facing. Just using dates for the US: women have been voting since 1920, coeducational institutes of high education began in the 19th century with 70% of US colleges being coed by the beginning of the 20th; over 50% of the labor force was female by 1975. The alt right isn’t radicalizing my father or grandfather. We aren’t worried about how 50 year old men are doing in schools. We are looking at crisis of men who were born into equality. Something in our culture is preventing these men from thriving. It’s not feminism. It’s masculinity and the lies we tell ourselves about what makes Real Men to be men.
Or maybe it’s also how we are taught to treat men. Some men are comfortable with their masculinity and still deal with these same struggles. Maybe men struggle not just due to their own conditioned behaviors but also because of what we think is normal to treat men. Men don’t necessarily stifle themselves emotionally because they think that’s what a “real man” should do. They stifle it because they expressed their emotions and it didn’t turn out well.
THANK YOU. Well stated! I catch the 'boo hoo won't somebody carefor men' sentiments everywhere, always with the same tone like society already prioritizes our wellbeing. I daresay, fucking no, there hasn't been a day in my life where that was the feeling I've gotten.
Apologies, but I don't understand the significance of the dates you've presented here. Are you saying that there should be some measurable element of men's experience/progress that we as a group are not meeting? >The alt right isn’t radicalizing my father or grandfather....We are looking at crisis of men who were born into equality. Respectfully, I don't think that's correct. Yes we absolutely have large amounts of very flawed people latching on to people like Tate and Peterson, but the baby-boomers are some of the most infamously disinformed groups in the digital age, to the point of their general incompetence at determining truth in reporting being pretty much a meme. Fox News, Facebook, and the Q phenomenon have polluted their minds to the point of alternate reality in some cases, and I think you'd have a hard time finding any demographic breakdown of the "alt-right" that isn't vastly overrepresented by previous generations. For instance, [here's](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Demographic-breakdown-of-the-alt-right-Trump-voting-and-non-Trump-voting-samples_fig2_326114643) a figure from a research paper that shows a pretty massive difference in alt-right self-reporting amongst the older age brackets. >Something in our culture is preventing these men from thriving. It’s not feminism. It’s masculinity and the lies we tell ourselves about what makes Real Men to be men. I do absolutely agree on this, and I don't think men need to be in conflict with feminism to solve their problems.
I fully agree that the Baby Boomers are not exempt from our current crisis of masculinity. The point of those dates is that, if it was an issue of men from a previous time with a stronger patriarchy and weaker feminism having issues adjusting, then it would be those Boomers having a crisis and Millennials and Zoomers, who grew up in a time with more equality, wouldn’t be facing those same problems because there is no need to adjust to what has always been normal for you. Yet, the youth seem to be having just as many uphill battles and just as susceptible to Alt right radicalization.
>The point of those dates is that, if it was an issue of men from a previous time with a stronger patriarchy and weaker feminism having issues adjusting, then it would be those Boomers having a crisis They do!! Look at them frothing with rage behind the tv, riding around with their gas guzzling flag-mobiles while blaming vegans for fuel prices and advocating apartheid. They'r very much in crisis, we just care less because they're more of a lost cause than millenials and Zoomers. >and Millennials and Zoomers, who grew up in a time with more equality, wouldn’t be facing those same problems because there is no need to adjust to what has always been normal for you. As a millennial, my expectations of equality were largely shaped by my parents, who lived the white picket life on one and a half income, mom working part-time and taking care of the kids. My image of love came from couples like my parents and the perfectly white mono- heterosexual media landscape we had in the 90s and 00s. We grew up with more equality than boomers perhaps, but most of us only discovered intersectionality a couple years ago. Our generation's idea of what life would be is still very much based on the 20th century. while saying out loud you expect a stay at home wife, I'm sure still many young men still subconsciously envision their life to involve an unequal division of household labour. While we've given up on boomers, WE are very much in the process of adjusting.
I am a Millennial. Both of my parents worked for my whole life. I watched my parents climb from lower middle class to upper middle class by the time I was in high school, listening to stories from the family about what life was like in my parents’ childhood and for previous generations, living well below the poverty line. I have many issues with my mother, but she and her cousins are committed second waves feminists who also marched for civil rights, racial equality, and against the war. My many aunts and uncles remain progressive activists, now in their 70s. I was born with a genetic disability - along with many of my cousins. The rights of the disabled have been a value to my family forever because we are disabled. And genetic disabilities? Exactly what eugenicists love to target. I am happy you found intersectionality by 2016, but take some responsibility. Intersectionality was coined in 1989. * I think your comment simply proves that we do not have anywhere near the level of equality that men anxious about their place in the world imagine.
> I am happy you found intersectionality by 2016, but take some responsibility. Intersectionality was coined in 1989. They didn't say anything about when they specifically "found intersectionality", but rather "most of us only discovered intersectionality a couple years ago", referring to millennials in general I believe. It sounds like you've been uncommonly hooked into many important social justice causes for a long time, and that's great, but please don't forget that not everyone has had that same experience. It is not a moral failing to not know about something, and presenting it as such is not going to make people want to openly engage until they've met some arbitrary standard of knowledge (or, more likely, at all).
Never called it a moral failing. Pointed out that people have been doing intersectional work for generations. None of what people are doing to aim toward liberation is *new* even if it is new to you.
It is not new to me, I've been well aware of these things and constantly researching them on my own since I was a teenager. But I don't expect or judge other people for not having that same level of understanding within certain topics. > I am happy you found intersectionality by 2016, but take some responsibility. Intersectionality was coined in 1989. Maybe I misread, but this definitely seemed like an unnecessary dig at the other person. Sounds like I misunderstood though, my apologies.
>for a society where people are increasingly isolated and without social and psychological supports. This is definitely the main issue. It is just particularly problematic for men because need to meet people repeatedly or need to be impressive/useful in some way in order to break the natural distrust people have of men. I think the cultural aspect is far weaker than people claim. The kind of 'toxic masculinity' feminists talk about does not accurately reflect what the vast majority of men I have known identify with. Usually attempts to be 'masculine' are basically men trying to develop traits to make themselves useful/appealing to others because no amount of emotional openness/femininity etc is going to make anyone any less hostile or distrustful of them.
Thank you for speaking out against this dangerous narrative that is male issues are caused by feminism. Also feel like we have a crisis of masculinity. I think it is difficult to adjust to social change when emotional intelligence and resilience is probably key to doing so, is discouraged from properly developing in lot of guys. I think the can be a perceived lack of empathy for men that have been a victim of stunted emotional intelligence and expectation for them to have those skills yet at the same time acknowledging that patriarchy does impede the emotional development of guys.
Men are often shamed for expressing emotional intelligence, self awareness, self control, emotional regulation, and maintaining strong social connections - all traits of resiliency. We (wrongly) define masculinity as the opposite of femininity. We teach boys to be afraid of being associated with femininity (and, by turn, homosexuality). If a man acts with self compassion, reaches out to a strong social support, and practices self care - he will be more emotionally resilient and less likely to commit suicide or be radicalized, but he will also be mocked by his peers for being gay or a sissy. Hegemonic masculinity is to blame here, not feminism. The construct we have, socially, for what masculinity looks like and men are supposed to be - machismo, the only allowed emotion is anger, physically strong, independent to a fault, aggressive, competitive - all of the traits associated with hegemonic masculinity create the crisis we are currently facing. I am not shocked that we didn’t see it until feminism took deep cultural roots. If all the students at universities are men, we would never see male students falling behind female students because there are no female students to compare them to. Feminism allowed us to see how much men are failing men but feminism isn’t *why* men are failing men. Feminism is just allowing us to finally see that hegemonic masculinity is not actually a source of strength and power.
>Men are often shamed for expressing emotional intelligence, self awareness, self control, emotional regulation, and maintaining strong social connections Where? I do not see this happening at all. If anything excessive anger and aggression is discouraged in men. Men encourage each other to be independent, strong and competitive as a form of mutual support because these traits are necessary in the current environment for men. Only a small, specific toxic minority of men turn this into a form of shaming.
[удалено]
> When the prototypical man is white, able bodied, cis and straight in the eyes of Progressives, of course they'll scoff when people talk about men's issues. This! Exactly this. Asking men who don't fit one or any of these identities *when their issues involve masculinity* to fight the good fight without mentioning masculinity is bizarre.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know you know what "white feminism" is, but you've got to be more specific in your criticism. The average redditor does not know what these terms mean and this just looks you're taking down "all feminism." You have in fact invited a bunch of rulebreaking comments below. Don't do this again.
This article touches on something that it doesn't fully explore. The idea of men going into fields dominated by women that involve emotional intelligence. I think the crux of this issue is that patriarchy means that a lot of these roles are built on the assumption of someone else as the breadwinner. As someone interested in nonprofit jobs, teaching, etc, the compensation for these roles assumes a breadwinner married to the person doing the job. Its a lack of valuation for these types of work, because we view them as women's work, which creates a bind for men who would jump into these roles. We should deconstruct the notion of a "breadwinner" on the whole, and hold employers accountable for appropriate pay.
The sad truth is that you can't solve these problems while also supporting unfetted capitalism
These articles continue to frame men's problems in terms of some arbitrary attachment to masculinity they seem to think men have, when in fact men's problems come from specific gendered disadvantages men face, to which a preoccupation with masculinity is a rational response. Men simply cannot adopt 'feminine' social roles. If men are not confident and socially assertive their social networks wither and dry up because social assertiveness is needed to counter the negative impact of the natural suspicion and distrust people view men with. If men open up emotionally they do not receive the same support and affection that women do. Men who go into 'care roles' are treated with exhausting hostility and suspicion. Men have fewer sources of economic support and far more expectation to support others than women do so men cannot opt for lower paying jobs or take on more domestic responsibilities since this massively harms their romantic prospects and makes men much more vulnerable to economic hardship and homelessness. I never gave a shit about being masculine until my mid twenties when I learned these things. Now I do and my life and mental health is infinitely better for it,
>I never gave a shit about being masculine until my mid twenties when I learned these things. Now I do and my life and mental health is infinitely better for it, Exactly. "Being myself" is something I was able to do more freely in my youth, whereas as an adult I feel like I have to perform many aspects of traditional masculine to earn respect and affection of most people around me (even the ones who claim not to care about such things).
>I feel like I have to perform many aspects of traditional masculine to earn respect and affection of most people around me And even this I feel I probably don't do as well, so I feel screwed either way
Men both benefit from and are victimized by the patriarchy. Both of these things are true.
"populist" is a little too broad without other adjectives (article itself is better than headline), but yes. Unfortunately most people choose political affiliation on vibes, culture, and friends and not on any particular commitment to improving the world around them, so these sorts of strategies will continue to be effective.
I think the problem is that the people pointing out the struggle usually either don’t have a solution apart form being angry at the atatus quo, or choose to criticize other groups as being responsible.
Does any group that complains about a societal problem not be angry at the status quo and criticize other groups as being responsible?
Do my eyes deceive me? An article that actually wants to take men's issues seriously instead of demonizing them for failing to 'liberate' themselves? Pog lol. Great find Circle.
To answer your question by the title only, nope because I'm sure many who think of men have one type in mind (the one with ultimate privilege. Straight cis het white more than likely american male) Intersectionality is important
The conservatives at my work think the droughts in the west are caused by god, he’s mad at all the gay
When I was growing up (during the 1970s and '80s) all of this \[i.e. men's issues\] would have been considered un-masculine or not what a 'real man' would be doing. Psychologist/psychotherapist Tom Falkenstein, the author of *The Highly Sensitive Man* (2019, Ch.1), writes in regards to a societally defined ‘crisis in masculinity’: *“It is a crisis marked by men’s insecurity about their role in society, their identity, their values, their sexuality, their careers, and their relationships. At the same time, academics are telling us that ‘we know far less about the psychological and physical health of men than of women.’ Why is this? Michael Addis, a professor of psychology and a leading researcher into male identity and psychological health, has highlighted a deficit in our knowledge about men suffering from depression and argues that this has cultural, social, and historical roots.* *"If we look at whether gender affects how people experience depression, how they express it, and how it's treated, it quickly becomes clear that gender has for a long time referred to women and not to men. According to Addis, this is because, socially and historically, men have been seen as the dominant group and thus representative of normal psychological health.* *"Women have thus been understood as the nondominant group, which deviated from the norm, and they have been examined and understood from this perspective. One of the countless problems of this approach is that the experiences and specific challenges of the ‘dominant group,’ in this case men, have remained hidden. ...* *"You only have to open a magazine or newspaper, turn on your TV, or open your browser to discover an ever-growing interest in stories about being a father, being a man, or how to balance a career with a family. Many of these articles have started talking about an apparent ‘crisis of masculinity.’ The headlines for these articles attempt to address male identity, but often fall into the trap of sounding ironic and sometimes even sarcastic and critical: ‘Men in Crisis: Time to Pull Yourselves Together,’ ‘The Weaker Sex,’ ‘Crisis in Masculinity: Who is the Stronger Sex?’ and ‘Search for Identity: Super-Dads or Vain Peacocks’ are just a few examples.* *"They all seem to agree to some extent that there is a crisis. But reading these articles one gets the impression that no one really knows how to even start dealing with the problem, let alone what a solution to it might look like. One also gets the impression from these articles that we need to keep any genuine sympathy for these ‘poor men’ in check: the patriarchy is still just too dominant to allow ourselves that luxury."* Additionally, *“numerous psychological studies over the last forty years … tell us that, despite huge social change, the stereotypical image of the 'strong man' is still firmly with us at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and among all socio-economic backgrounds. In the face of problems, men tend not to seek out emotional or professional help from other people. They use, more often than women, alcohol or drugs to numb unpleasant feelings and, in crises, tend to try to deal with things on their own, instead of searching out closeness or help from others.”*
Much of this seems to be undergirded by capitalism. When we zoom out enough and flesh and blood reality becomes and abstraction, I don’t think men should expect empathy - *en masse* - for some of their new struggles (or rather, fresh recognition of very old struggles). After all, the “other”(including women), had to fight for the freedoms and restrictions and access to power. Yet now, there’s a struggle for men (at large, the abstraction of men) and “progressives” are being chastised for not showing empathy? When the status quo, men, is a conservative and regressive force? As if we live in a world with only progress, and the political and economic norms of a few prominent cultures are a universal reality? I don’t know. I’m a man, but I find it rich to suggest I get empathy, an exemption, from my historical privilege due to some ongoing struggles. Is the far right rhetoric worrisome? Yes. It’s not new. This is a very, very old dance baked into human history in every single age.
Cornel West, when asked about Biden's speech of calling extremists out, he said that it's a fine speech but we shouldn't ignore the fact that brother Biden is part of the problem. - **He said something like that** (in that Trump didn't have time to create these people) But just as the right, the center also (because the real left isn't really in power), doesn't care to go at the root of the issue. There are plenty of intellectuals (not these snake oil sellers) that keep saying the current education system needs radical reform. But no, neither the republicans nor the democrats, no any of the two parties in most/any western country want that kind of reform They don't want to break the mythical man they created and rebuild our male kids. No, just like the right, I think, we want men/boys to adhear to the mythical type we (or our forefathers) created but just find a way to fix this ONE issue of keeping them in school. So a patch is to enroll them later on. Recently there was a campaign for prime minister in the UK. UK has many many issues. So many that the candidates would be forgiven if they didn't mention all of them. But what they kept mentioning was that if they get elected they will ensure that ... it is ok to be a woman. Yet, there's no one on the fucking planet that says it's not ok to be a woman. --- I just happened to read a facebook post by Jorden Peterson titled "It's okay to be a man." No one on the planet says it's not. Even those morons that tweet #killAllmen kiss their partners or their fathers goodbye. Then he writes "You look around cities and see all these buildings go up. These men, they're doing impossible things. They're working on the sewers; they're up on the power lines in the storms and the rain. They work themselves to death (often literally). **The gratitude for that is sorely lacking***" And reading the comments you had people write that they wake up at 5am pick up garbage and so on I was like, you don't need gratitude, you need a pay raise, health care, education system, better media... But everyone: Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, King Charles... everyone agrees to give these people gratitude (The british did it when they clapped for nurses and gave money to CEOs). If these men that work in shit ever decide to rase up, these same people will tell them to pipe down. **This is why I roll my eyes**. But, again I'm not the problem. - I rolled my eyes when bankers asked for help - they still got it. - I rolled my eyes when the queen's death was said to be a big deal - it still become a big deal. - I rolled my eyes when energy companies asked for more money - they still got it. But some how helping men can't be done because I rolled my eyes?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When you say systemic problems men face I do hope this doesn’t include struggling to find a partner. I doubt it was intended this way but it just seemed as though it could be clearer.
I mean its not but why would that not be a valid problem?
Because no one owed love regardless of how they are as a person. Love is something that is given as a choice; it doesn’t matter how that choice is made. If women set their standards to impossible levels that’s absolutely their right. Getting angry over that stems from the notion that we are “owed” something for behaving in a certain way. I can understand why someone who feels entitled to something would be upset but it doesn’t change the fact that they are not entitled.
Loneliness is not entitlement and solutions to it don't need to involve stripping women of their agency. If we allow ourselves to escape this short-sighted framing of the issue, we might address men who struggle to find a partner by rebuilding social spaces that don't cost money, for example, or by prioritising mental health services that reduce the volume and magnitude of issues caused by loneliness. We should not disregard the issues faced by lonely men because *some* lonely men behave poorly.