It's an interesting read - a lot of her experiences she's discussing boil down to feeling she was ignored or her voice minimized because of her perceived gender identity and assumptions about how she was raised and what she would feel.
I liked her discussion and thought her perspective on purposely not transitioning was an interesting view. This was a really good analogy and drove home the point for me:
Imagine, dear reader, a cis-woman evenly saying:
“I wish I looked like that but I don’t and can’t. It sucks and it makes me feel really awful if I brood on it. That’s why I focus on my writing—I’d rather make things. Investing in and building things that aren’t my body helps me cope with the body issues I’ve been saddled with against my will.”
She doesn’t sound like she needs advice on how makeup will actually fix her core problem, does she? She seems like she’s doing alright. I’m her and I’m trans. That’s all.
Some big quotes that hit home through this post were
Do I need to be inspected and dissected by the people who laughed at me in order to receive my credential?
“I play along,” one of them told me, “because in the queer community the only people who defend cisboys are cisboys. I don’t want to give up finally being read as a girl.”
Oof.
I don't know if it's just the sections of the internet I frequent these days, but this intense, misandrist views don't seem to be as common as they once were, and not as accepted.
I was born into that shitty town, maleness, in the remains of outdated ideals and misplaced machismo and repression and there are some good people stuck living there. They are not in charge. They did not build it. And I don’t feel okay just moving out and saying “fuck y’all — bootstrap your way out or die out, I was never one of you.” I want to make it a better, healthier place—not spend all my time talking about how shitty it is and how anyone who would choose to live there deserves it.
the misandry has become less acceptable over time, probably as more "cis" girls like i was realized we weren't so cis or girls and made some of those actually cis girls confront the things they'd said and thought during that time
but also we've become a lot more aware of how the patriarchy hurts men, and we've also become more broadly aware of feminist authors like bell hooks, who have been writing about how men need feminism too all along
Cis woman here. I run in pretty leftist circles and whilst I don't see open misandry as much anymore, I also don't see as many people speaking about men's issues as I'd like. If I do see people speaking about men or masculinity in a problematic way, it's usually people who are receptive to being challenged, once I've pointed things out.
I appreciate that you call people out on these things. My experience with pointing things out or seeing online conversations where someone else pointing it out has been very different. That's not to say what you're saying doesn't happen. It's probably just different based on where exactly on the internet we've been. Granted, leftist areas of the internet has this issue less, but it's not zero.
Like let's take a conversation about men that are virgins. The more comments there are, the more likely it is that at least one person will make fun of this category of men. And in the cases I've seen, any attempts to counter this is met with "Lol the virgin outed himself". Very rarely does an actual conversation happen (again, in the cases I've seen), because any arguments brought forward about why we shouldn't shame men for being virgins is shot down as invalid because the person bringing these arguments is a virgin. Or heck, he might not even be one, but the other person has already made up their mind on the virginity status of the commenter.
And the fact that it's present, albeit not as often, in leftist spaces as well is really harming and it can push people in the other direction. I'm in my 20s, a leftist man and a virgin, but I was fortunate enough to form my opinions on a lot of issues without encountering douchebags like Andrew Tate. But what about someone that's a teenager right now, doesn't have any opinions on political stuff yet, but sees the left that's fighting for no discrimination, making fun of virgins, which he is? He goes to see what the other side is saying, and boom, he's trapped in there now. Of course, the past couple sentences is my idea of what might go through this hypothetical guy's mind. So it's not that I think the left as a whole makes fun of virgins, but from where my example guy is standing, it could seem that way when a lot of people say those things and they go unchallenged.
Sorry for the long rant, but it's basically a really long way of saying: I'm glad you're calling this shit out and keep at it!
Is this “article” seriously three paragraphs? It’s like they just wanted to make a headline.
Also, Tyler isn’t an insomniac. He has dissociative identity disorder.
Tyler doesn’t exist, he’s an alternate personality. But Norton’s character literally says he has insomnia, and they show him unable to sleep in multiple scenes. He also has multiple personalities, possibly brought on by years of untreated insomnia.
This movie is one of my favorites because I feel Everytime I watch it, there’s a new corner of society that can be picked a part that isn’t easily noticed the first go around.
“Fight club isn’t about masculinity” is a pretty weird take. Especially based on the argument that only incels think about masculinity? I don’t think I disagree with what you’re saying overall, but I strongly disagree with both those ideas.
What?! The movie couldn’t be more about masculinity and how it’s warped into a dangerous philosophy. It pretty much predicted incels before there was a name for them. The narrator creates Tyler as his ideal image of the “alpha” male who is successful but still gives the middlefinger to the establishment and who of course is irresistable to women who Tyler only sees as pretty pieces of meat to fuck. He’s who Andrew Tate wishes to be.
But Tyler is actually pathetic. He has his soap business but lives in squalor (which of course he tries to sell as freedom) Sure, he manages to create the Fight Club, but only by preying on other men desperate for a meaning in their empty, sad lives. And he couldn’t have created any of this without the narrator’s money from the settlement too. Which again is shown as this great triumph (because we see everything from the narrator’s eyes), but it’s objectively fully blown psychotic behaviour. The job might have been shitty but I also don’t think we see him ever socialize with his co-workers. He was probably the smelly, weird colleague that everyone was glad to see leave the company.
And until “Project Mayham”'s last act of full-blown terrorism, their pranks objectively would only make them look like assholes too. (it’s full on “just a prank, bro” behaviour). That’s also what Marla explicitedly calls Tyler, an asshole. She’s not attracted to him but the narrator.
The movie’s happy end is not the buildings blowing up, it’s the narrator killing this toxic part of himself and finally stop being alone and unloved.
(By the way, it’s deeply ironic that he simply doesn’t get that the self-help groups just give him a feeling of empathetic community that is completely missing from his life. Which is what the Fight Club is, as well, but there it’s twisted into the old “men would rather hit each other than talk about feelings” bullshit. Again, toxic masculinity.)
It’s also a scathing satire of consumerism, of course. That movie has several layers, that’s why it’s so good.
Sorry for the rambling rant.
TL, DR: The movie is told from the perspective of a deeply delusional man, but objectively he is a pathetic loner who randomly turns into a megalomanical asshole. It literally shows how toxic masculinity can warp your perception of reality and how this “philosophy” can radicalize men following it.
I think it’s mostly that people assume men are bad caretakers and can’t handle a child. It’s partly that they are impressed by the fact that you’re not totally inept, but also that they need to do their part to make sure that dad doesn’t screw up with the child.
The “men are inept in the home” narrative is pervasive throughout all media, even things as inane as product commercials on TV.
Anecdotally, the majority of fathers really are inept. I can’t believe the amount of guys who play into the stereotype. Pride in not ever having changed a diaper, complaining about having to babysit their own kids, generally buffoonery when trying to get me to relate to their shit takes on fatherhood. Even some of my friends aren’t truly thinking about their role as both parent and partner.
That said, when I’m out “alone” with one or both of my children and this scenario plays out, it really gets to me. I may not know or remember everything at all times when it comes to good parenting but I sure as fuck know that if I put socks on my son when he was a baby he’d flip a fucking table. The boy doesn’t want socks, ma’am. And dont take my picture.
It only gets to me for a short time because I feel like I’m receiving what my partner gets every damn day about everything else. Getting talked down to based on perceived gender biases
I am not disagreeing with the article but I think the better description would be:
"Young men (12-24 is used by the author) would like more positive attention. They see the attention young women receive via sexualisation as positive but are unaware of the many downsides it brings."
I have been saying essentially this for years using a water analogy. It is difficult for the drowning to explain their problems to people dying of thirst.
The statistics have shown for decades that peers are what determine political alignment. The answer is therefore simple: don’t send your kids to conservative education.
Oh for sure, Private Schools are a plague of dogma, but the most conservative group in France on average would be a centrist in the USA, where the article was published. Compare educated groups with uneducated groups, and it’s pretty clear that education leads left.
I went to public school in a blue state and it was not far left. The labor movement was taught as a handful of very bad situations that caused workers to strike and peaceful protest fixed it. Things like the Battle of Blair Mountain and the violence it took to get where we are were ignored. Same with civil rights, MLK Jr gave some speeches, some people marched, there was resistance, and then we fixed it.
Any non capitalist leanings were ignored or minimized, the organized violence of the state and those who opposed it was ignored, figures were lauded and their life summaries always left out the part were they criticized capitalism or the complacent middle class. No mention of Mother Jones, Smedly Butler, our involvement in Iran as a pre shah state, or anything that would tarnish America’s image as a modern moral state. Hell, they never had the nerve to call what we did to the Native Americans a genocide.
I’d disagree with that. I see that the gains we’ve made in quality of life are often the result of literally fighting for change. The systems we live under are the result of incremental change over a long time and should be questioned and resisted when our ability to live a full human life is threatened. The systems we built 10 years ago are unlikely to be perfect, nevermind 200 years ago. There’s a reason the US constitution has the amendment process. It is a living document we are ment to change to address the problems we face. Knowing what it took to get the changes in the past let us weigh whether the changes are worth it and the ruling class knowing we know our history means they know what’s on the table.
If you choose to call living a life with a degree of awareness and the ability to be more than a profit generator far left so be it. However, I’m very fond of not working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, and dying from preventable illness due to gutted safety standards.
It seems like the common thread is men not feeling like their problems are heard.
The internet and decline in friendship are partly responsible, but men’s groups that tried to form in my town had police called on them and the fire alarms pulled, and people with megaphones would yell over them and they got doxxed and harassed.
I know that these “feminists” were a small group and thought that these men getting together was going to hurt them, and some of the men were shitty, but they ended up silencing men online and off so that only the scummiest people became the ones standing up for men’s rights, so now that’s who the majority voices are.
Men do have serious issues: there’s parental rights and family court, there’s still the breadwinner expectation and unemployed men find themselves divorced at high rates, men taking parental leave are punished by fewer and worse job offers, the education system isn’t serving men well (as evidenced by both low achievement and high rates of medication), and men largely don’t see the point of pursuing higher education. There’s also addiction and suicide, the lack of support networks, feeling excluded from safe places in the way women’s shelters exist (these used to exist commonly in communities, without being toxic “boys clubs”). I’d bet a lot of men have gotten in trouble for pouring their feelings out to a partner too, I have, it hurts.
Those are all real and big problems, on top of the existing problems for everyone of life getting more unaffordable, good paying jobs being hard to find (long gone are the factory workers supporting a family of 6).
What these influencers are peddling are: easy answers (that are also largely wrong, things like blaming women), an easy to identify with ideal (the strong alpha male with cash and toys and hot girls and no fucks to give), selection bias/self made man bias (in truth nobody is self made), and an approachable “I have the answers, and you can too if you listen to me” persona.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d bet that working on addressing these issues (especially education and finance) for younger men would dry up the audiences of these influencers.
People don’t have hope for the future, and it’s killing them .
Edit: I should clarify I’m all for feminism, I’m egalitarian, the “feminists” alludes to the small group who pretend to be for women but they’re actually just anti-men. Almost all feminists and women are not in that group, they’re the female incel equivalent.
but men’s groups that tried to form in my town had police called on them and the fire alarms pulled, and people with megaphones would yell over them and they got doxxed and harassed.
Where did this happen? Why would people prevent men from forming groups? That sound completely surreal to me (Germany).
Why are men always obsessing about what it means to be a man? I think that was one of the most commonly asked questions on reddit. Never in my life have I asked what it means to be a woman, I find the question nonsensical. I’m a person and I can do whatever I like and being a woman isn’t the defining feature of my identity.
Everyone is different. There are many millions of non-man-identifying folks trying really hard to figure out what it means to be whatever they are.
Men are no different, just so happens we get pretty toxic when we are unfocused and unsure. Not an excuse, but that’s what we’re seeing.
Also these articles make it seem like all men struggle with this. Most folks just wake up and get on with their day, much as you describe your experience is.
Since the very beginning, men are told to not to cry or man up and don’t talk about feelings, because that is gay, later he notices that he can’t express love the same way a woman do, then he learn’s people respect him more if he is logical and uncaring.
These are all stereotypes men deal with so they think being a man is being like that. To change they need help from society. So they ask how to be a man is like: how a respectful and flourished man act this day and age?
My personal opinion is to change society, the better behavior need to be motivated. If being a confident asshole is paying off men will be like that.
Guy here, we’re not obsessed. Society is, we are basically told and enforced on since birth that a man does certain things and acts a certain way. And if he doesn’t then not only is he not a man, but is also a failure.
I can personally vouch for the fact as well that it’s not just “toxic masculinity” but it’s partners and friends that are women as well that if you show any amount of “non-men” attributes or emotions they will drop you or ridicule you and tell you to “man up”
Women claim they want men to be more open and exposed among many other things. But I’ve then seen the exact same women act disgusted by a guy or look down on them for doing exactly that.
Thankfully I didn’t get caught in that trash red pill community cause their ideas are awful and won’t fix anything, it’s all a grift… But to a young guy that doesn’t know any better it is frankly very obvious why they would choose to believe in that sort of thing.
Men have no positive support networks that won’t have the chance to just put us down anyways. We have no identity besides the trash society brainwashed us with at birth. Unlike women we don’t have nearly the same amount of positive reinforcement from anyone to break the traditionalist molds we were born into which also reinforces the ideas that men shouldn’t talk about our feelings.
And to top it off we are constantly portraited and made to feel like monsters everywhere we go because of the fearmongering media. Seriously I’m not horribly ugly, about average, but the looks and body language women give me just for walking and passing by them on the sidewalk (if they don’t cross the street and walk on the other side) is… Dehumanizing and there’s nothing I can do about it.
None of this is isolated to me either, this is a constant throughline of common experience from every guy I’ve ever meet.
Society needs to be more supportive of men that want to break traditionalist roles as well as stop being dismissive to mens issues. We need more good role models for young men, or else we will continue to see an uptick in this red pill trash. But that won’t happen if we keep isolating men and brushing off their issues as is so common.
It’s not the identity of males that is the problem … it’s the loss of power, privilege and status and the idea that males, especially white males are supposed to be equals to every other human on the planet.
The fact that this is changing is what is very upsetting to males … especially white males.
The male privilege can vary drastically.Let’s say you’re talking about a poor white man or a wealthy one. Wealthy white man still has patriarchal families and tradicional values.
The poor and middle class man are the most affected, they don’t know how to progress to get the milestones of life, so they search for answers on how to behave, how to get a job, how to create a family, how to be respected.
So they build a identity of a man to be portrayed in society, this can lead to integration of toxic masculinity traits, it will also get worse with isolation, but a stable and reasonable person can help listening and speaking about the challenges.
In my experience, the number one reason you see very very few male primary school teachers, and even less kindergarten or prek, is the social assumption by parents AND admin that men both do not know how to care for/teach children of that age, and that they MUST be up to something nefarious.
There's also the assumption that men with younger children are automatically preditors. It's why dads taking their daughters outside without a mom get looks
Twenty years ago I used to work at one of Canada's largest kids camps running their health centers. After my stay at home experiences ten years ago or so I probably wouldn't take that job now.
I had an experience in Germany that really stuck with me. It highlighted to me the difference in how men are treated around children. As a north American, it's assumed that older men around children is an unsafe situation and that left me feeling doubt and uneasiness whenever I was around children.
I had the opportunity to work and travel in Germany for a year and picked up a job as a home cleaner. Think Uber but for private property cleaners.
I was scheduled to clean a home I've never been to before and the owner told me that their son would be there to let me in. When I arrived, I called the home owner and she let her son know to let me in. He was probably about 10 years old and I was completely shocked that this person was trusting a complete stranger with her son who was home alone. I did my job and let him stay in his room and didn't bother to clean his room when he refused after I asked.
I did get a chance to meet the parents on later visits to clean but that really put it into perspective to me just different men can be treated in different parts of the world.
About 8% in 2022, under 30yold 12.6%, under 20yold 17.9%, over 60yold 2%.
There doesn't seem to be an official quota, at least I couldn't find anything concrete. Should be state law and that's generally easy to find. OTOH there's a literal fuckton of organisations involved running Kindergarten, many are independent associations, others are run by churches or municipalities, all of those may have their official or unofficial guidelines.
(For the Americans: Kindergarten is not part of the school system over here y'all are misusing the term. Kindergarten is where you develop motor skills (and other things) through play, school is where you then learn to write. Definitely no home-work. Generally not mandatory though some states have introduced mandatory developmental tests so that kids who lag behind in some areas can get that fixed by professionals (minimum 3 years education) before school starts so they don't start their school career at a disadvantage)
In our representative study [...] 40% of parents, 43% of daycare centre managers and 48% of intendants stated that they - more or less intensively - had thought about the risk of abuse by an educator.
Remarkably, however, these survey groups also showed a very high level of approval towards men in daycare centres. In our study, around 90% of parents, daycare centre managers and intendants consider it important that children are cared for by male professionals.
90% is rather significant, I'd be interested in numbers from other countries. It's more than enough so that you don't need advocacy to get things started because practically everyone already acknowledges that it's an issue that needs solving, all that was apparently necessary is for someone to sit down and develop ready-made strategies regarding getting men into the profession, allaying fears, making sure that organisational structures make it harder, not easier, for abusers, etc. That seems to be mostly "have them be democratic and not hierarchical", which is of course a good idea in general.
The main reason men drop out of becomming an elementary teacher, is because they have to work parttime at a kindergarten for 6 months. Most of them want to teach, not care for walking shit/vomit fountains.
Netherlands. The curriculum that educates teaching at schools demands students to work a number of hours at a daycare. Which leads male students to drop out.
Interesting. The process here requires full semesters of observation, then more hands on lesson planning, then "student teaching" which is essentially unpaid internship, 5 days a week all day for a whole semester
OP’s post history is full of concern trolling. Previously, it was trying to stir divisiveness regarding voting. Now it’s trying to stir divisiveness regarding this community.
OP says
I simply reply to the sentiment I see on this platform
The appeal of a grievance-based identity makes it hard to convince straight white boys that they in fact have plenty going for them, and that they have no reason to feel aggrieved.
Yeah, but they do have reason to feel aggrieved. Patriarchy is fucking boys and men over too.
Yeah this part stuck out to me too. It’s really difficult to see all that’s left on the table when we refuse to acknowledge that boys are absolutely still forced into damaging masculine roles.
Grievance-based identity… Interesting that it is attributed by the author to straight white males; on the right “oppression olympics”, i.e., grievance-based identity, is attributed predominantly to the left.
Are you assuming that most straight white males are religious and Christian? There’s probably some truth to this, at least in the US, but I doubt that most straight white males are religious enough to have a persecution complex. Moreover, from my understanding and experience, the persecution complex is mainly attributable to Catholics, which further reduces the sample size. On the other hand, I think some flavour of a persecution complex could be attributed to any religion, not just Christianity. After all, religions control through shaming inappropriate behaviours and rewarding desired behaviours.
I was mostly assuming right-leaning people in the US tend to be Christians, pointing out that a cohort known for projecting their problems perhaps isn’t the best to contrast with.
My comment was somewhat flippant, but you raise a good point in that not all Christian denominations maintain a persecution complex. A generalization on my part, I admit.
It occurs to me now that I don’t quite understand your point. Are you suggesting that people tend to accuse groups they don’t belong to of a “grievance-based identity” as a strawman? Or is your point about drawing a parallel between accusatory conservatives and concerned mothers? Or is your point perhaps simply that the author is othering her child?
My original point was mainly about both sides (left and right) attributing grievance-based identity to each other. There’s probably more to it than that. The truth is out there, but I feel like neither side is doing enough to understand the nuances of what’s going on in society and oversimplifies the dynamics at hand.
You do bring up an interesting point there. It does make me wonder how much each “side” is attributing behaviours to strawman versions of the other vs not seeing what they have themselves.
I personally strongly related to the article, I think there’s a crisis in finding meaning in masculinity these days. I think the red pill alt-right types are promoting an easy but unhealthy version of masculinity (fulfilling yourself by status symbols, or min-maxing something, or really falling into the alpha/beta/sigma nonsense).
I’m really glad this article exists, but i wish it went bit further. Nobody of any gender should be pressured to participate in a sexual and romantic and legal entanglement. Conditions for dating are awful and misogyny is way too prevalent, but there is simply no world in which it is normal or fine to say “people need to be married for their own good and the good of their children”. How extremely regressive and gross. Single people are not responsible for the failings of the society they live in. If single people truly do have worse outcomes, then the solution is to change systems of financial oppression and create better social safety nets and offer more services, not tell people that they have to get into long term romantic relationships and create little nuclear families for socioeconomic reasons. We have already seen the outcomes of forcing people to get married and have babies or else. It wasn’t good back then, and it’s not going to help now either.
That is a great point and I wish they went further on the better social safety nets. If you really want healthy children that should be the focus regardless of gender of the parent. I think its odd when people talk about how marriage is only for children or you need to be married to have children its gross and so old fashioined.
yeah like why can’t people just get married if they want to get married, or not get married if they don’t want to get married? has never made sense to me
There have been scientific studies to determine if humans are monogamous or not … it was inconclusive … we like to think that we can or should be paired together for life and live happily ever after but in reality, most of us are not.
The majority of my friends get together for a few years and then divorce, separate or live together in a personal hell because they feel they have to.
I have friends in Quebec in Montreal that have been together for 50 years now. They never had children worked as artists and writers their whole lives and pretty much had a free life between themselves. They made an agreement with each other when they started living together that every five years, they would sit down and discuss if they wanted to continue their relationship. They’ve been doing that ever since.
I do that in a way with my wife every few years … we also don’t have kids … we just sit down and talk about whether or not we want to continue. It’s not done during a crisis, a falling out or when we’re angry or out of sorts … we try to have it when we’re clearly thinking of things but it’s not easy … it’s not an easy topic to discuss … which is also why it’s important to have. After 28 years, we still choose to be together.
The current assumptions and expectations that society has about monogamy and commitment are insane. The idea that one person should meet all of your social, relationship and sexual needs is insane. Especially for those people who consider being attracted / look at other people / looking at porn to someone else as cheating. Like you don't stop feeling physical attraction or even get crushes if you are committed. You just don't do anything that violate other peoples trust.
The queer communities take on monogamy and commitment that does have any assumptions is really the best method going forward. Not to mention the removal of gender expectations for house work etc. Its exactly like you described it. An on-going discussion about what your commitment means and what is and isn't allowed. It priories the relationship over everything else.
I think one of the biggest issues everyone glosses over is … we change during our lifetimes.
We are not the same person in our 20s, our 30s, our 40s for all kinds of reasons … our work, our situations, events in our lives, trauma, biological changes, genetics or just psychological changes. Some people stay the same sexually and stay the same throughout their lives, whether its being straight, bi, gay or anything else … I know some people who changed over time from being straight, to bi, to gay or to just asexual … in one way to another. I’m sure everyone know people like this. It’s human nature, most people are not born a simple being that stays the same forever, we evolve and change sometimes because we want to, we have to and other times against our will and biology.
So to have an ever changing pair of people living together … we should not expect them to stay the same forever and want to be together indefinitely.
But the inverse is also true too … maybe the two 20 year olds accept one another but change when they’re 30 … and now the 30 year olds now accept each other at this age … and on and on.
Exactly. People and relationships should change and mature. We should also look at different measures of success. A couple of was married for 15 years and then got a divorce but don't hate each other. That is a successful relationship but it didn't last an entire lifetime
Yup, been with my partner for over a decade. Live together, not married, no kids. Originally there was some talk of marriage, but I’ve always said that there’s no reason to insert the state or the church into our relationship. There’s nothing stopping either of us from leaving the relationship if we’re not into it any more. It keeps us treating each other with respect, knowing that there’s no higher authority telling us we have to stay together until we spend thousands of dollars in paperwork and waiting periods.
The way I do it (cast iron pan on the BBQ, screamin’ hot at 700+C) is super delicious. So much so that I think I might fire up a steak this weekend. Gotta check the weather forecast to see if it’s worthwhile.
Gen-X men see eye-to-eye with male Gen-Zers. An identical 43 percent of men in that bracket call themselves feminists, compared to 49 percent of the generation’s women.
I feel like the authors think these 2 sentences are supporting the same argument, and I think they do not.
Asking someone if they “identify as a feminist” is vastly different than exploring their core values. “Feminism” is a badly exploited word that means many different things to many different people, even within a generational cohort.
It’s entirely possible that the sample of Gen-Xers that identify as feminist also carry more regressive beliefs than Gen-Zers that said they were not feminists.
The way this study was summarized in the article smells a lot like an older author (read: Gen-X or Boomer) trying to make sense of Gen-Z by plopping them into buckets created for the older generation.
I don’t know anything about anything, but this smelled less of science than an article reporting a study ought to.
I’ll add to this the lack of male only spaces throughout life. There used to be scouts, boys sports, working men’s clubs, veterans clubs etc. Almost all of it is mixed now because that was sexist. The opposite has happened in female areas with charity leagues, coding clubs, sports, gyms, etc.
What is the need for male-only spaces? I can see the need for positive male role models for sure, and those would’ve often been found in those male-only spaces you mentioned. But what is lacking from not having them be male-only?
Why do some women like to have women only spaces? I think different people have different environments they feel most comfortable in, where they can be the most self. I assume that is true for at least some men with men only spaces.
Because there are so many male dominated spaces? There are women-only gyms because many gyms have mostly men working out. Look at any basketball court in a park and count the number of women playing. There’s always random dudes, but very few women. Look at any soccer field, baseball field, BBQ area, etc. These are huge public areas devoted mostly to things men want to do.
I say this as a dude who enjoys all of that. If women want their own baseball league or running club or whatever, it literally doesn’t hurt me at all. Men don’t need “men only” spaces because that’s still the default for everything now. If some women show up to play basketball, that’s totally fine. They may not be as strong but there are plenty of smaller dudes playing too. It makes no sense to exclude them.
They may not be as strong but there are plenty of smaller dudes playing too. It makes no sense to exclude them.
So why would it make sense to exclude men?
Also, I’m not the best person to argue about it, since I personally don’t really like male-only settings so I would not speak from my own experience. And in general I think our society profits more from mixed settings since they help to normalize relations between genders.
You’re entirely correct, this guy’s ‘need’ is completely isolated to himself, it’s not a universal - I’ve never asked myself “wouldn’t this be better if there were fewer women?”, absolutely never occurred to me even.
he wants gender exclusivity because being around women makes him uncomfortable. Well buddy, that’s not how society works lol. Maybe move to Oman or Qatar if they want genders defined like that.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
Maya Angelou
Some dudes are just not comfortable around women, and they all seem to be downvoting comments. The funny thing is, these dudes would probably be thrown out of most “male” spaces (sports bars, basketball courts, weightlifting gyms) for being nuts.
It honestly depends how truthful you want to be. The first is men are allowed to talk about issues with other men without being judged for it. So it could be “I’m worried I don’t make enough money for my family” they wouldn’t want their family or family’s friends around then. Could be “I’m having this sex issue”. Could be “this one night stand sexually abused me and if I tell anyone she told me she will go public that I raped her when I was the victim!”. Without men only spaces those conversations can’t happen because you can’t say “oh I’m going to,” actually where? haha I can’t even think of an example where a man can go to talk about sexual violence, thats how bad it is. But I meant “oh I’m going to go to this sexual violence clinic for men and it will be in secret so you don’t know I’m going” it needs to be a casual place that allows for other conversations.
Now this is the controversial part that will divide people. I think most men simply just enjoy men only spaces some of the time. They feel less judged and they feel it’s more friendly. I honestly think men only spaces are important to mens health because they can enjoy themselves and act “normal” they can act in a way that feels natural to them rather than acting the way women find socially acceptable.
You’ve expressed what you want, but your reasons don’t don’t reflect positivity. They reflect the notion that women are somehow fundamentally other to you tlin a way men aren’t, and you provide no reason to believe that to be true.
You know what you want. It’s not at all clear that you understand what you need.
Not for gyms no. Uni-sex gyms are the best in my opinion and I would choose then over single sex. More people, more space, more machines, no point having men only gyms because I’m not really having convos and when I do it’s just as likely to be men or women for something causal unless I’m asking people how many sets they got on the bench press.
I’m fairly certain the hidden secrets of girls who fancies who, and does she like me back all came up in scouts. That’s all part of growing up. I certainly learnt a move or two from the rugby club and people got helped out on issues they were having with girls, finances, school, mental health, fitness, confidence, friendship. The rugby club was the biggest source of positivity I have ever seen in my life. Yet I had more than a few girls who knew nothing about it, never even met rugby players telling me it’s “toxic”
I was very careful not to use the word universal. If I had to bet I would say confidently way more than 50% of men and boys would benefit from some male only spaces.
Let me ask, why are you so against men only spaces? Okay you don’t want men only spaces, that I can accept. But why deny that to others, where are people going to go for issues I mentioned?
Let me ask, why are you so against men only spaces?
Because it’s a fantastic waste of resources for reasons you either choose not to or cannot articulate lol. Having spent time in gender excluding MOS’s, then spending time in integrated specialties, I realized it was absurd and puritanical in most cases.
Okay you don’t want men only spaces, that I can accept. But why deny that to others, where are people going to go for issues I mentioned?
because I don’t want to live in Saudi Arabia or any other country that sexualizes or others gender to the point of building duplicate infrastructure to serve each. It’s wasteful, immature and asinine.
Frankly, I don’t care about your estimates of how many your wild ass guesses say it would benefit, it’s not going to help society. In society, we all have to live together, there’s no safe spaces we can run away to in order to escape whatever it is you’re afraid of.
If you start down this road, when the nazis show up at your bar and say “oh we don’t exclude women, we exclude the undermenchen” you should be comfortable knowing you created that situation.
Now, assholes… man, I wish, oh how I wish, we could just exclude assholes from the public sphere, but I don’t get my wish, and neither should you.
I would have to disagree that men having access to mental health and help for domestic violence is a waste of resources but I guess we can’t all be cunts. If you can’t see that I guess you’re beyond help.
Still never answered where guys go for issues.
As for men only social clubs, well its not a waste of resources because it will pay for itself like it has done in years gone by. There is value in it and it is paid for, that’s how the economy works. Otherwise everything we do that isn’t work or food is a waste of resources.
I’m absoultely not only about division of sexes I’m on about some small, in certain cases sexual divided areas that woukd improve mental health. But good strawman.
Well I’m glad you got all the answers to stuff. I guess my conversation with other men are pointless but seeing as you have all the answers and know there is no benefits (eventhough I have first and second hand proof it does).
If there are no safe spaces let’s close down women only spaces then, they don’t need domestic violence centres, we don’t need prison we don’t need police, not point worry about anything we all need to live together.
I would have to disagree that men having access to mental health and help for domestic violence
at the mens only hospital, or the men’s only therapy building?
No one’s trying to take away male access to mental health and help, cute strawman tho. Nothing about those even require the therapists to be gender specific, say nothing about the entire facility.
you have yet to explain how gender division improves mental health, it’s not a strawman argument at all. you stay you want things, say they’re important to your mental health, then do absolutely nothing to explain how that requires gender exclusive facilities.
I do love how you jump from “if I can’t get mens only X, women shouldn’t have protection from domestic violence”.
did you really mean to say that bit aloud?
Why not just join a men’s footy team? why do you need a men’s only clubhouse? It’s silly mate. Go join a monastery, I think you’d be happier.
at the mens only hospital, or the men’s only therapy building?
You don’t need a mens only hospital.
Mens only therapy could be good.
No one’s trying to take away male access to mental health and help, cute strawman tho.
Yes they are. The only domestic violence centre in the country got closed by me because women were outside protesting. It got closed down and no one cares because its men.
Look up domestic violence how its been treated by governments and by feminist groups and your eyes will be opened.
Nothing about those even require the therapists to be gender specific, say nothing about the entire facility.
Some therapy doesn’t need to be gender specific. I’m not arguing that, but some does. The fact that people cannot accept male only spaces for anything is the issue. If people need help and feel more comfortable with a male therapist with other men only in the group, for any reason shouldn’t that be allowed?
I do love how you jump from “if I can’t get mens only X, women shouldn’t have protection from domestic violence”.
Because out of all this the thing that I really cannot ever get my head around is how no one doubts women needs men only space. But even to suggest that might need the same things, to suggest men need protection from domestic violence then you are sexist, an incel, a Nazi. I don’t deny women should have women only spaces, but what I’m fighting for is men only spaces. You don’t want that don’t go. If that genuinely helps people and makes them happy why do you want to stop someone? Just think about that for a moment, why do you want to deprive someone of health and happiness?
Why not just join a men’s footy team?
Some people have dodgy knees, some people are old, some people don’t like sport. Why aren’t those people allowed the same camaraderie that is now only reserved for athletes?
I know how much support and help I have had in men only environments, how much guidance and growth I’ve had, how much fun I had. From scouts, sports, friends. I’ve also seen how much help other people had, seen people crying and gotten better after it. I know these things first hand and as well as that I have. I also have empathy, I can understand how a young boy with no grandparents and a dead dad, no male teachers in school and no friends might need male only spaces. They need that guidance and support. The truth of the matter is men only groups are different to mixed groups, they just are at least for huge amount of the male population. They have something you don’t have elsewhere. Men and women are just different for most people and that’s perfectly okay. But forcing people to only act a certain way isn’t.
You can run a survey for yourself. Personally I have always longed for male-only spaces, and I say this while most of my friends are female. That’s kinda the point.
Personally I have always longed for male-only spaces,
Join a monastery then bud, no longer any need for longing.
society has sorted you out, take it and go instead of inflicting your gender phobias on the taxbase, paying for duplicate infrastructure just because you don’t want to be around women is absurd.
Read the whole comment. I don’t have many friends, and all the close ones are women. I can talk with them about many things, but sometimes I end up relying on the only lesbian one among them hoping that she’s “male enough”.
My comment is anecdotal, of course, you don’t have to believe that many other people have sometimes the need of hanging out only with other men. But even among acquaintances who hang out in couples in a friend circle, it’s habit that some weekend retreats are boys-only, girls-only.
Replying to multiple comments of mine at the same time looks like a personal attack. But aside from this, I don’t understand what do you want to accomplish.
lol you actually believe this?
Yes, and among women I know it’s not done in bad faith. It just takes some patience to get them to care.
surprise surprise surprise
What if I told you that I don’t have a car either. How would it be related to anything you know of me?
There is a debate to be had. But just as women benefit from women only spaces men might benefit from it too. Because sexual selection always plays a role in social dynamics, especially at that age. But I’m not sure it needs institutions for that, and that also isn’t an argument for men only “good old boys clubs”. More about good male (non toxic) role models.
What you get now are vile role models online that are actively pushing toxic masculinity or even fascism.
Thank you for sharing that. I haven’t had the same experiences. I don’t feel the same sense of judgement or anything in mixed-gender spaces, but I won’t discount those who do.
I have close friends of both genders with whom I’d talk about those kinds of issues with.
I am confused as to why there needs to be a “men’s-only club” for some of those conversations to happen, though. Those generally aren’t conversations I’d want to have where strangers can overhear, regardless of gender. So I would just call a friend to go somewhere private, likely outdoors, or somewhere like a car or someone’s home.
In my area, I do believe there are men’s-only therapy groups and the like, and I hope that that becomes the norm around the world as time progresses.
Unfortunately, I think the bias towards women’s-only spaces being normalized and men’s-only spaces being replaced with mixed-gendered spaces has been because of the history of men using those spaces to exclude women (e.g. from career opportunities), or from behaving inappropriately towards women in mixed-gendered spaces (such as gyms and swimming pools).
I think there is a lot of work to go into socializing young boys and young men. I would almost be worried that male-only spaces would be somewhere where men “Don’t have to worry about that woke/Politically Correct shit anymore”, and then eventually feel like that’s how society should be.
There is definitely a place for male-only spaces, but as I’ve never felt the need for them, I was curious as to what others wanted them for. So, thank you for that.
One reason is because young males bond differently when there are no females in the group. When there are females the males often compete with each other for the female’s attention, rather than building strong bonds together.
I came to say the same as many other replies. For older men, it doesn’t matter as much, they can simply create their own spaces, but for boys they really can’t, they are pushed into mixing in most situations. Boys are more boisterous, so need the organized outdoor spaces. They can’t get that male space from sleepovers like girls at that age do.
For another example, think of how a group of teenagers act on their own, now how does that change when you add an adult? It is obviously unhealthy for them to always be around an adult.
Of course they can get that space from sleepovers. Gaming interested boys have done that for decades - LAN parties, or nowadays the less physical Gaming over Discord or whatever. For sports-focused boys, of course things like soccer teams are way more important spaces.
“It might feel dangerous to let a teenager argue that sexism works both ways”
made me hesitate a bit. Any man with a decent chunk of life experience knows that this sexism cuts both ways. Still, I sympathize with the primary message. I wouldn’t want my children to fall into extremist politics either.
At the same time providing the fundamentals of critical thinking is becoming more and more challenging with how many different actors want to hijack our emotions for their own purposes and bypass rational thinking.
To add to this - the most important thing is the community. Yes, girls are given special organizations. But the cause of this rightward lurch is a world wide withdrawal from community. We’re not spending time together and calling each other out on their shit. Rightwing nutjobs used to be known to be rightwing nutjobs and they were called out for being that way. They knew what they were and they knew the community disapproved. Now everyone is siloed at home on the internet with no social fabric to error check them and tell them that they are being pushed towards nutjobism.
Men's Liberation
Top