Counterpoint: Being proud of something you did not choose to participate in is a post-hoc rationalisation and just a bit self-delusional.
The statement: "I am proud to be a man", makes as much sense to me as "I am proud to be right-handed".
I am proud of several achievements in my life and ashamed of my behaviour in others. A statement I assume applies to most people. My gender has nothing to do with either.
I do not take credit for the achievements of others of my gender (or of the right-handed...) the same way that I am not responsible for their crimes.
Humans, by our social, tribal nature, love to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups usually to the detriment of all.
Being gay or trans is also inherent, and because of societal push back, we've decided that being proud of those immutable attributes is appropriate. Masculinity gets a bad wrap in a lot of ways, and the healthy expressions of it should be something to be proud of, in my opinion.
Good point but Lgbt+ people have been shamed and criminalised for simply existing for centuries. Their use of pride is in reaction to that imposed shame. The black pride movement in the 1970s is the same, a group rejecting an innate trait as a reason for shame.
While males have been the dominate gender for basically all of recorded history. While aspects of male behaviour have come under, in my opinion, much needed scrutiny in recent times, I think talking about the issues of males violence (against man and woman) and other problematic behaviours needing to change is a long way from telling a gay or trans person to stop existing.
I'm not keeping score here. Even if I were, I wouldn't argue that men have it "as bad" as these hyper-marginalized groups. But I do think that there are positive and healthy aspects of masculinity that should be celebrated and that we should be proud of. Just like femininity.
Is it really true that men have been the dominant gender for most of history though? As I understand it, men and women have both been subject to rigid gender roles that they could not choose or get away from, so overall it was equally hard on everyone. It is just that with the advent of feminism, the struggles of women have received more of a focus.
men and women have both been subject to rigid gender roles that they could not choose or get away from
Very true. But you must also consider that while the role in society for pretty much all people in pre-modern life was rigidly defined, in all cases that I have read about the role of women was much more constrained and restricted.
To give a specific example from a period I studied.
The life of a peasant man in Tudor England was rigidly defined and pretty much at the whim of his Lord. But inside his home he had the same authority over his wife and family. The average man had little rights, the average woman had none.
In no way we’re women more socially constrained than men, at any point in history
Simply look at all the male deaths. You’re putting that against your perception that women weren’t allowed to leave the kitchen (which is wrong) and just completely dismissing all of the far, far worse and more burdensome things men were expected to do under threat of violence and death
Adding on to this, it's also weird to me to never hear class or race acknowledged in their one dimensional view of history as something that solely benefited men at all times. Like are they gonna seriously argue the black men who were literally hunted down and tortured for sport in American history were still somehow above the white women sitting comfortable at the sides?
Apex fallacy and basically patriarchy theory, which we know to be wrong
A very few men had power in the past, as did a few women. To blame men as a whole is the same shaming bullshit that you justify lgbt people having pride for, contradicting your whole point.
I agree that people should not use the terms toxic masculinity and patriarchy, as they are habitually used to generalize and discriminate against men. They are offensive and misandrist. (Maybe that's a better wording than "it hurts men's feelings", which some people have a problem with.)
And yes, when you mean egalitarianism, don't say feminism. Tho used as a term to refer to a misandrist movement, feminism is fine.
The issue isn’t that those words hurt anyone’s feelings, the issue is that they skew the discussion because they’re established expressions and therefore give some undeserved credibility to whoever uses them.
By keeping it going. It's very regrettable that it fractured, but I guess at this point it can't be helped. My mistake was misjudging the willingness of active participants to jump ship, tho I am happy to see some of you did make it over. I am here for you, as long as I perceive there is a need for this community. It did hurt to get misrepresented and blamed for things outside of my control by a former top contributor to the subreddit. His ego, his inflated sense of self-importance, and his blind anger only resulted in further fracturing of the community. It really took me by surprise, and caused me a lot of stress, which is why I have been quiet for the past week.
There is no chance in hell I am going back to Reddit, after the absolutely shameful way that company treated us. And I don't understand anyone (especially a left-wing activist) willing to tolerate that, or even more: volunteering to curate content for them, especially after the degradation in service which is affecting effective moderation (e.g. BotDefense).
And I don't understand anyone (especially a left-wing activist) willing to tolerate that,
Sadly because it's easier to spam "Fuck spez" and act like that's doing something rather than make an actual change in their life, like dropping reddit all together. It was one of the things I disliked most about the site.
volunteering to curate content for them, especially after the degradation in service which is affecting effective moderation
My best guess it shortsightedness mixed with power hunger. They probably only see that sweet mod position where you can delete any opinion you disagree with or any user deemed "problematic" without thinking about the work that would actually go into modding a botless subreddit. But that's just me pulling that out of my ass.
But enough about that, I am glad that in some way shape or form, this community is still going!
The reason toxic masculinity is favoured as a term is to avoid acknowledging misandry.
Feminists commonly used to that discrimination against men is actually due to misogyny. For example, men are afraid to cry because it's seen as feminine. So since they believe men's issues root from misogyny, toxic masculinity is the perfect term for them.
This is problematic since some issues such as male suicide are thought to be due to toxic masculinity. Whereas real world data shows that men aren't afraid to seek help, therapy is both difficult to access (in the UK) and isn't really geared towards dealing with men.
"The startling statistic from the research showed that of those men who had taken their own lives and had actually sought help and were assessed for suicidal risk in 2017, 80% had been assessed by clinicians as having low or no risk of suicide; this is troubling and an issue that must be addressed. These men are talking but who was listening? This lack of understanding of male suicidality (stressors, transversal issues and life transitions) is key, especially when presented in indirect ways."
Yes, essentially it makes it look like they're doing something when really they aren't.
Also, if men don't like the term, they should respect that instead of forcing it on them. Often times when a man is asking for support, there is a person lecturing him about toxic masculinity. They care more about people using the term and spreading their propaganda than to actually offer real help.
Thats actually pretty interesting. I was under the assumption that all men are like my father. But considering the amount of help any person needs from others, it makes more sense that it's more diverse that "toxic masculinity".
Why does it seem to me that feminists try to pick examples and situations that support their agenda?
Did we not have feminists who were terrorists in the 1970s?
My theory on the reason they pick examples that supports their agenda is because it's all a zero sum game to them. Claiming that fighting toxic masculinity will solve men's issues, requires little to no funding. They fear that funding of actual men's mental health or abuse services will reduce funding for women's organisations. The owners and CEO's of women's organisations rely on government funding to fill their pockets which is why Women's Aid tried protesting against funding men's services around 2-3 years ago.
The verbage of the term toxic masculinity has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding misandry, nor does it have anything to do with the male suicide rate. That said the realities of toxic masculinity do absolutely contribute to male suicide. Toxic masculinity is not primarily a men-on-women issue, it is a men’s interpersonal issue and it is probably most salient for men in intergenerational relations (think of your dads). Toxic masculinity has also been extremely present in norm policing in adolescents. Think about kids too young to know any better picking on each other for girlish behavior. Male suicide is absolutely a critically underserviced issue but very little of it has to do with misandry.
I don't think someone needs to be particularly antifeminist to see that mainstream discussion of gender has tended to "other" men, placing men and boys in an oppressor category, ignoring how the discussion might affect them, or genuinely blind to that reality.
While it's true that the term was coined during men's movements of the 80s/90s, it had a different contextual meaning then: more like a counterfeit male code to be contrasted with the idea of a true "deep" masculinity. Apart from that difference, the reality is that most men and boys are not part of a today's "conversation" about masculinity, but instead feel like it is being imposed on them.
The “be a man” sexist narratives all have one thing in common: they treat masculinity as prescriptive, not descriptive
“This is the way a man should behave” instead of “this is how we observe men behave”
It’s about control. People are very sexistly invested in what men are “allowed” to be
And notice it’s not what the man wants to do, he wants to sit on the couch and play video games, putting in only enough effort needed to do that.
That doesn’t jive with other people, tho, they want that man to be financially productive so they can profit off of him. The prescriptions have nothing to do with what is good for that man, and therefore nothing to do with what it is to be a man.
All forms are simply different variations of “here’s the way to act that is best for me (not you, the man being talked to or about)”
Yeah, that's why I only bring up toxic masculinity in a group of other men where I can explain what I'm talking about. The general perception is it's just something to blame men for.
I suggest you use the terminology "harmful gender expectations" it's a bit more of a mouthful and it's less catchy. But then again the reason "toxic masculinity" is catchy is because it creates a strong negative emotional reaction in a discussion that should be intellectual or empathetic.
Right but that wasn't its original intention, before feminists got ahold of it. I generally lead those conversations with "simping is an example of toxic masculinity." Cue reeeing from feminists, but w/e
You can suggest whatever you like, feminists will continue to use "toxic masculinity" because feminists like that it's a misandrist slur with a definition that can't be pinned down. They are hypersensitive to word choice and continue to use this because it a cheap and easy way to disparage men in general and excuse >any< behavior of women.
While it's true that the term was coined during men's movements of the 80s/90s, it had a different contextual meaning then: more like a counterfeit male code to be contrasted with the idea of a true "deep" masculinity.
This is true, but also I think these guys really hated the Arnold Schwarzenegger types. Even if they had a healthier idea of masculinity that they wanted to promote. It's possible that the term itself was born out of hatred.
Generally, if someone's telling me that something is "toxic", I just assume that they're trying to sell me something that I really shouldn't buy unless I have some serious proof to the contrary.
I've actually never seen feminists use "sexist gender expectations and roles” but maybe I don't frequent them enough. The term I've more commonly seen is "internalized misogyny". Because why waste an opportunity to imply that men are the cause of all the problems?
Agree. The point is that feminist is nor about equality, is about face women against men. That is why when feminists come to power they make discriminatory laws against men, it's not because they are "radical" or they don't understand feminism, it's because feminism is that, it's hatred of men.
That's why we must reject feminism and at the same time be in favor of equality between men and women.
The Right wins by default on men's issues not because they have anything to offer men, but because the Left is so sandbagged by misandry and anti-male paranoia that simply doing nothing is an appealing alternative.
I am not prepared to let go of my left-wing values the way most of the people claiming to be left-wing have been doing. I am an egalitarian, and I am not prepared to treat men as less deserving of human rights, of care and consideration, of protection against discrimination, and so on.
But yeah, if you are on the left and care about men, you often have to carve your own way and swim against the stream of normalized misandry. But that's why we have this community.
I'm starting to realize that even in the localized leftist communities we're involved, we need to start creating spaces where men can freely talk about these issues in a leftist environment. Unfortunately, we don't have much power to be open with it in our own communities due to how they'll react. Even more dangerous when they're brainwashed by ideas of men that make them automatically distrustful of men, even at the start.
It is because we are egalitarian and pro-human that we are pro-men as well as pro-women. And because men are human and have human rights, men also deserve to have their rights advocated for. This community welcomes everyone who comes without hate or bigotry, to discuss men's issues.
I just did. And honestly it doesn't leave me hopeful for this space. Boosted comments in that thread overly generalise feminism and even place blame on feminism as a whole for issues that men face. Comments saying that feminism is an egalitarian movement are reduced.
Men's advocacy is important. There are perspectives on issues that men offer that other genders cannot, the same way there are perspectives that women can offer but other genders cannot. And not all feminist advocacy is created equal, some of it is not great. But the generalised blame game is precisely the sort of tribalistic thinking that so often leads men's advocacy spaces into misogyny, where women's advocacy is treated as an infringement on men.
I agree. I scrolled through the comments (even responded to some) and this community is already heading towards where the feminist communities are heading: blaming the "other side" for everything.
It's not productive in any way and only serves to widen the gap between both communities.
Great comment. I think the framing for a lot of the issues men face get mixed up here. I casually scrolled through the post about the Reference book of Men's Issues(RBOMI) and at a quick glance two thing stuck out to me:
There was a point about how most of the homeless population is men, around 90% or something, but women make up 25% of shelter/housing resources. First, the framing. If 90% of the homeless population is men, then by grace of majority every discussion about homelessness as a whole is going to be male-centric. There is no need to specify or specifically call to men. Secondly the article they reference from the BBC does indeed state those numbers but the RBOMI doesn't explain that yes, these numbers are accurate but that's because most of the women using those resources have kids with them that need to be cared for.
The second thing that stuck out to me was in that same point the RBOMI claimed it was likely due to "male disposability" although there is no reference link for that assertion. That is a claim the post is making by itself based on a flawed understanding of the issues that affect men. That attribute, that I want to reiterate is completely made up, is meant to have an emotional response in the reader, to make them angry, to make them afraid that it could be them.
I was pretty far down the track of stereotypical MRA/Incel/forever alone when I was younger and the posts here remind me of that and it is scary. I am worried for the community and for the men here.
I just saw Everything , everywhere, all at once, and was very pleasantly surprised that, even though it is centered on two female characters, it does not for a second use feminist talking points of "men did it", and concludes in part that the hero is unsatisfied in life because she has failed too see how wonderful her husband is.
No, just no. This is a typical "forever alone" take, and the proposed solutions are unrealistic at best. Not gonna happen.
How are we supposed to take the lead and approach while keeping women safe at the same time when approaching her could make her feel uncomfortable
By being gentlemen about it. Be confident in our approach, but be respectful when turned down.
And understand that many women react the way they do because of a series of negative experiences they've had. It's tragic that bad men ruin it for the good ones. But that shouldn't mean the good ones should give up.
Men already deal with the expectation to approach and make the first move. If you put that much pressure on men, it's gonna make them wanna find communities that will tell them how to do exactly that. Guess where they turn to? The redpill/PUA.
Because there are so few places that teach positive and respectful ways of dating. I really think this is an issue primarily of education (by other men and by male communities, as well as parents). Most boys are left to their own devices when it comes to this, which means peer groups, social media, and Hollywood. Is it any wonder they don't learn healthy behaviors?
TRP and PUA at least offer solutions that work to some extent, unhealthy as they may be. Where are the healthy alternatives?
So the first step here is for society to stop expecting men to make the first move and not just that. Stop expecting them to read signs (especially signs women gives as an invitation as her "first move" as they're subtle, not obvious), stop expecting men to start flirting, and stop expecting men to be the first ones to initiate conversations about sex.
Not gonna work. This is too deeply ingrained in our nature, which evolved over millions of years. Sperm is cheap, and pregnancy is still a heavy burden. Most women are always going to be more careful about selecting who to have sex and relationships with. Take it as a fact of nature.
I'm not saying it can't change, but don't build your dating strategy on expecting it to change. That's how guys end up forever alone.
I don't believe we as a society (given our current practices) should partake in active agency with dating until we've gotten rid of those expectations.
and
We should not be doing any active courting in dating nor give out any dating advice until we have reached a point where society doesn't expect men to be the initiators all the time.
Then enjoy being forever alone. Most men are going to pass on that, because it is unnatural, and the urge to have sex and to be in a relationship is simply too strong.
Your proposed plan of action is entirely unrealistic, and I would say even damaging to boys and young men seeking healthy dating strategies that work.
Yes, it's a quagmire navigating all the conflicting advice, which is why I say that more experienced men showing others the way is so important.
By being gentlemen about it. Be confident in our approach, but be respectful when turned down.
And understand that many women react the way they do because of a series of negative experiences they've had. It's tragic that bad men ruin it for the good ones. But that shouldn't mean the good ones should give up.
I'm all for being able to accept a 'no' and moving on but as I mentioned in my comments, most women aren't gonna outright say no and instead find socially acceptable ways to exit a conversation. Many guys aren't aware of what's really going on here and just end up confused. In the worst case scenario, they'll continue trying to talk to her cuz they felt they didn't 'try enough' or in the best case scenario, they just leave things alone and go back to doing their own thing.
Because there are so few places that teach positive and respectful ways of dating. I really think this is an issue primarily of education (by other men and by male communities, as well as parents). Most boys are left to their own devices when it comes to this, which means peer groups, social media, and Hollywood. Is it any wonder they don't learn healthy behaviours?
I agree with that as well but one question. Do you agree that women can and are able to make the first move? Cuz my position is I think they do, but many of them won't make that first move and often times expect men to do it. So even with places to teach positive and respectful ways of dating, that pressure for men is still going to be there and I don't think the side effects of it are going to be pretty. Cuz if they're the ones who are still expected to approach, they're inevitably gonna make women feel more uncomfortable even if they mean well. But we already got there in the first place because of what I've described. This was mainly the reason why I suggested getting rid of these expectations first. I can go on and explain in detail exactly what men should do to approach a woman, start a conversation with her, read the signs and move on. But it's not easy taking that much emotional toll from this many rejections (which if it builds up can lead to a point where they lash out at another rejection.), it's also not easy for men to gauge weather they are successful or not which can result in them reading situations wrong, coming off a more aggressive than intended, or even into searching for methods to achieve said results (even if done from immoral means). If men don't feel expected to live up to these standards, then they can follow these healthy dating advice without feeling those same pressures I was talking about, which could mean women won't have to put up with much aggressive creepy behaviour they see from men like they currently do now.
Many men are lost when it came to mainstream dating advice as it doesn't deliver results. The only dating advice that's delivering results now are advice that tie our self worth into arbitrary values i.e if you are a man and can make a lot of women have sex with you, then you're valuable. If you're a woman and you can withhold sex for 3 months and make him fall in love with you before the sex, then you're valuable. Adversarial dynamics.
On a side note, I actually do know some healthy yet practical dating sources that I've learned from so they are out there, but TRP/PUA/FDS material are in heavy abundance and not much channels that discuss the nuances in dating. But they're not gonna do much as long as men feel they have to bear the burden of doing the heavy lifting initially all the time.
I'm not saying it can't change, but don't build your dating strategy on expecting it to change. That's how guys end up forever alone.
I'm not talking about dating strategies here, I'm talking about expectations. I'm all for men to make the first move, to initiate flirting, and even to escalate to sex. Having the skill to do that is very valuable, but the expectations men face to even live up to that are gonna lead to some unfavourable outcomes for both men and women. In terms of meeting women, it can make men to be aggressive in getting a number just to build options, and will often try tricks to ensure a woman has sex with them in a somewhat manipulative kind of way. It makes it physically and emotionally unsafe for everybody involved. It wouldn't even matter if there are healthy alternatives out there if they're still expected to do the heavy lifting initially.
And healthy dating advice that's currently out there are geared towards masculine men and feminine women, leaving the more feminine men in the dust as being in a position to lead for these types of men is exhausting, speaking from experience myself, and finding women who are okay with being in that leading position is very rare.
I had to make another post on this due to character limit, but yea I personally think it's too risky putting out healthy dating advice for men as if we're still expecting them to do the heavy lifting, women are still gonna have to put up with us approaching them even at times when they don't want us to, which means we could indirectly be encouraging harassment in these cases. And considering dating has a of factors, it's quite risky to do that if men feel like they gotta make something happen or if they don't and relax a little, then nothing will happen. And if they mess up on it, the woman ends up being very uncomfortable or he may say or do something the wrong way that really messes up the interaction.
Let's say a woman decides to make the first move on a man given the current practices we have established. Because the average man doesn't get that much attention, he's gonna latch onto any positive affection given to him, making him clingly and needy which can make it unsafe for her. If the man is secure enough to handle a direct approach from her, fine, but many men feel lonely so they're not emotionally developed to handle that (which again I link this back to male expectations.).
Me personally, I don't think we can have a conversation about healthy practical dating advice if we're still encouraging practices that potentially put women in a position where she constantly has to deal with men approaching her which is where most harassment cases comes from and why they feel perpetually unsafe.
This is primarily the reason why I suggested we should get rid of expectations for men first. You get rid of the expectations, they don't feel pressured, which means some of the lengths they would go to they won't need to go that far anymore as they feel they get enough attention & validation, enough feeling of being desired, so they can take it easy. This shouldn't stop them from taking their shot, if they see someone they find attractive they should shoot their shot if they want something to happen, they just won't feel that intense pressure to be doing so all the time.
Note: "males" sounds weird here, but I'm not sure there is a better way to indicate that both boys and men are affected without getting super wordy. Comments and suggestions welcomed.
I think it's important to point out that a lot of the negative outcomes that disproportionately affect males are the predictable results of trying to meet expectations put on males. How many men take dangerous or debilitating jobs to increase their income? Earning and accumulating wealth is one of the most straight forward ways for males to increase their status. Males that don't initiate and succeed are largely ignored, which means most males have experienced lots of rejection and failure by adulthood. Males that can't measure up, or >feel< like they aren't measuring up, burn out and frequently turn to self soothing but harmful solutions like drugs and alcohol which can compound into suicide or homelessness.
At this point feminists will chalk it up to "toxic masculinity" and call it a day. Because that intentionally puts the entirety of the issue on males and is a conversational dead end. This makes the issues worse because males quickly realize that there will be no help, just mind games and tactics of delay. It shows males that pay attention how cynical and manipulative feminism actually is. Feminist are just as likely to judge and reward or penalize males based on cultural expectations as everyone else, maybe worse than non-feminists. Which is jarring because feminists are immediately offended when society has expectations about females.
I agree with you about toxic masculinity and patriarchy because those don't exist. Feminism exists as an ideology. Many people identify as feminists so it's okay to use feminism.
men
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates.