If you want to throw the word pseudoscience around, can you post any scientific evidence that beatin the meat causes porn addiction? I’ve been doing it my whole life and hasn’t caused me any issues, just ask ur mom after I banged her last night.
Yeah beating the meat doesn’t cause any addiction. Just like drinking alcohol doesn’t cause addiction? Or injecting drugs into your body? Do you even know the definition of addiction.
If you are a man, just masturbate 3 times a day, and then don’t masturbate at all for a while. You will see the difference. You don’t need some expert validation for simple shit like that
Bro do you really think masturbating is the same as alcohol or drugs addiction lol. If you genuinely believe that, then idk what to tell you, you’re just wrong. Please try to look for a single scientific paper that supports this absolutely wild view. I will pay you in a million uplemmys.
One University study suggests that primates have been masturbating for around 40 million years. I think it’s safe to say we’re probably ok beating our meat a little now and then (though obviously excessive masturbation can be an issue). Interestingly, prevalence of masturbation seems to go up with primates in captivity, which to me suggests it’s either a stress response (relieving tension), a reaction to the more limited activities available (boredom), and/or a reaction to the safer environment (more free time not worrying about getting killed).
But isn’t the point of nofap that porn conditions our thoughts to imaginary situations that might be unlikely in real life? Like impossible body standards or performance standards or just unnatural interactions.
I know that anecdotes are bad quality evidence, but there’s a hell of a lot of anecdotal data that sex tastes have changed over the last 60 years. Are there alternative theories about what caused it?
Frankly? Way too much oversharing with friends of all ages. That’s why it’s anecdotal, but it’s even changed in my time having sex. It’s just not something that I’ve seen studied by someone other than Christian mom groups.
Edit: I can’t reply in a comment, so here’s my answer to azuth
Well that’s a way of dismissing it, yes. However, I as the person involved in the conversation can tell you that is not the case. I’ve heard some incredibly over detailed and overshared information from older people. I’ve also fucked them, and they’re not as kinky ime, but that’s like four people instead of thirty. Foot fetishes don’t seem to be meaningfully more common among youth, but likelihood to have had anal sex, likelihood to have tried fisting, choking, or non-spanking painplay are much higher.
I used to go to munches before the pandemic, and there’s obviously a lot of old people in BDSM, but it’s wild how much more quickly people discover it now. That’s a good thing, but it’s also a little concerning for me at least. My tastes have expanded with time, as most peoples do, but what’s going to be left at 70, if I’m getting ownership tattoos at 35? It’s cool to say, “whatever it is, I’ll enjoy it,” but there’s a physical cost to a lot of sex acts, especially extreme ones. Things like breast flogging are considered probably safe, but we don’t actually know if there’s lasting damage.
Then there’s the people who don’t go to munches or participate in the BDSM scene, but still engage in a “lighter” form of it with partners. I and about half of my similarly aged friends have been at some point surprise choked by a partner, which as a description feels euphemistic, because it’s so much more dangerous than anything else. Doing it by surprise is something that I react to like it’s attempted murder, because someone’s putting their hands around my neck without a safe word or any built up trust, or even warning. My peer friends who aren’t in BDSM are all caught way off guard by that and tend to think I’m overreacting. Older vanilla friends see it mostly the same as I do, whereas kinky friends are universally bothered by it.
The fact that being stoic, emotionless or even cold is seen as a trait of masculinity is incredibly frustrating. I feel men should be encouraged to be passionate and expressive with their emotions. Anger shouldn't be the only one we encourage as a society. Have you ever seen a man glow up about his lego collection, or cry at a beautiful scene in a movie they love? More of that please.
Also, men are just as deserving of support networks as anyone else. Though we all experience life differently, we are all human in the end.
The fact that people took Stoicism, a philosophy that’s basically cognitive behavioral therapy for emotional awareness, and twisted it to mean “stiff upper lip” or “repress everything lest you seem weak” is depressing as hell.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve taken a liking to Diogenes’ Cynicism, seeing past the “social norms” and dumb social organization ideas humans come up with.
This is great context. Particularly as it highlights the differences in gendered experiences. For women it’s in some ways a demand for attractiveness while for men it’s more of a literal command that is more likely to be used in self policing (that is men policing masculine expectations of other men). Also notable that both sentiments seem to be more likely to come from men.
As someone who presents masculine, I have gotten the "be a man" treatment from women several times. Ultimately it does come from a patriarchal standard of society, but its something that is perpetuated by everyone, consciously or otherwise. Not discounting what you are saying, but I think it's important to highlight that toxic masculinity can come from anywhere.
i think it's really simple.. we don't gather in order to accomplish things together.. not in the real world, solving real problems.. men become friends when they solve problems and build things together.. think barn building among the Amish.. and we basically can only drop the competitive thing if we're trying to work together, but then we get right to work.. and that's our normal socialization.. when we see one another, we immediately like to reminisce about something we fixed or conquered together.. back in my grandfather's day, they spent free time at the men's social club, to brag about exactly that and drink and play cards all evening.. we haven't figured out how to replace that stuff.. so we're all just adversaries all the time, learning how to get better at combat and shit..
right, games are the current substitute.. many men aren't interested in games, because there's nothing real about them, and i don't think it really suffices as a substitute in general..
A person that is honest with themselves and their partners in relationships they occupy.
Someone that is there for others to lift them up not bring them down.
It’s someone that should strive to be a rock for others in both judgement and practicality.
Being a effeminate male this is a question I ask myself often. I often hear about other relationships where the male counter part just doesn’t do chores. I ask why does he want his partner to succeed? The other one I hear often is about the inability to admit they did something wrong, usually in regards to child rearing. I guess I’m just mentioning things men in general need to work on to be domestically more successful.
You don’t have to be a man to be this way. Everybody should be this way.
I think just being yourself and being true to yourself and your convictions and not be a jerk is what really matters. No matter if you’re a man or a woman.
I agree with your comment that the history, and how that history has affected marginalized groups, specifically, is important to learn and recognize–and I think this is true of most of western culture.
Like !DrBob said, this article doesn’t feel like that. It cherry picks its sources and the author seems to fundamentally misunderstand Stoicism. In fact, it seems to me that the author is misattributing the failings and misunderstandings of some of Stoicism’s bad actors to the philosophy itself.
I have personally found Practical Stocism to be a useful tool in my own mental health journey, especially where it relates to recognizing and controlling my responses to things other people do or say in my relationships, why my responses are what they are and what I can do about those responses. It has never been taught to me as a tool of suppression, but of experience,acceptance, and, ultimately, control. If I am able to recognize what I am feeling and why, I am better able to decide for myself whether or not it would be valid to respond out of that emotion, or if doing so would perpetuate a cycle it would healthier to break. It’s not about not feeling, it’s about giving me the tools I need to decide how best to respond to what I’m feeling.
That being said, I fully recognize that language evolves and changes and that the word stoicism without the illumination now has negative connotations for mental health, and is mostly associated with unhealthy coping mechanisms and behaviors. Perhaps it would be more useful to ask where the disconnect between Stoicism and stoicism truly lies, and how we, as men (or as humans, since a lot of this ties into basic concepts of emotional maturity) can display different and better behaviors to change the association (if, indeed, we’re even interesting in doing so?).
author seems to fundamentally misunderstand Stoicism
Or rather, is using the word “Stoicism” in a different way than you are. Like when research obviously shows a link between Christianity and intolerance and people come out in droves to say that true Christianity is about love instead of hate.
Yeah, sure, you learned a neater version of stoic values. What the author is referring to is a bit more generalized, a caricature but very real form of stoicism that some people preach, sometimes even without even calling it stoicism themselves.
The conflation of Stoicism, an established and codified philosophy, with the more general idea of bog standard stoicism is precisely my criticism. The author is not using the term differently from me, they are using it incorrectly by conflating it with a more general, and more modern, term–a term without established codification, and vastly different connotations.
Which leads directly to the point I actually made–which you entirely ignored with your reply–that anyone who uses the terms interchangeably, conflates the two, or teaches one as the other fundamentally misunderstands the terms they’re using. Thus my statement that the author is laying the connotations of one term at the feet of another, different and distinct, term.
Stoicism (capitalized) and stoicism (the more general, more modern term) are not the same thing, which is why this article, in my opinion, misses the mark.
It is not so much that they are conflating two unrelated stoicisms as you seen to imply but rather that you seem to be specifically trying to distance yourself from historical stoicism. There’s good reason for this, stoic philosophy was originally just as tied up in metaphysics as any ancient philosophy. This sense of metaphysics, while easy to discount from a modern perspective, was used primarily to justify existing power structures. Key among them patriarchy and slavery. Ultimately, this has little to do with the particulars of the philosophy. Knowing that, it would seem an easy task to separate the two as you would like to and yet it is still remarkably difficult to find any modern stoic groups that do not recommend Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, etc.
What you call the more general stoicism (lower case) is better understood as the whole of stoic cultural influence as it relates to the modern world. Even the etymology of stoics comes from the school of philosophy. It is not reasonable to try to claim stoic philosophy is best understood as only it’s most modern incarnations even as popular stoicism relies on ancient men to be it’s primary mediums.
I’d be very interested to explore this idea further with more historical discourse / critiques, if you have any sources, as it’s my understanding that modern Stoicism is based primary on Seneca’s work, and treats Seneca’s ideas of the Stoic Sage as a both a blueprint for modern Stoicism and the evolution of the ideas of prior Stoics.
I appreciate your perspective, and it’s clear we’ve been educated on these topics quite differently. I’d love to learn more!
Seriously though, I hope this post gets taken down. This is a small community, downvotes don’t bury anything. It’s typical Petersonian propaganda that tries to argue against what is stated in the sidebar by flaunting abstract wordings, accusatory misogyny and straw men. If this stays up I’m so out.
Altho I myself am an egalitarian and therefore antifeminist, many of the points I made above are not inherently antifeminist. Before Patriarchy theory’s ascendency in the Fourth Wave, it was contested amongst feminist theorists. It was feminists themselves who first pointed out how incoherent, self-contradictory, and wholly unsuited to its purpose Patriarchy theory is.
I've found a lot of women don't believe men can be "as" bi as women can be, and there's this suspicion that if a guy has ever been (or just wanted to be) with another guy, they must be more into guys than women, and wen don't want to have to wonder/worry about that. I think this is just a reflection of societal implications around male and female gayness being different though, that women are accepted to exist on more of a spectrum (perhaps because attraction to women feels natural to straight men, so it is less "surprising" or foreign to see even other women feel it), while men are considered more binary.
This is purely anecdotal, but I think that's more in line with other unaccepting straight men's reaction than straight women's (especially since a lot of straight women are into/fine with anal too). I think with women it in many ways comes down to the fact that everyone has been conditioned to think that guys are either 100% gay or 100% straight, while it can be sexy or desirable for a women to go both ways.
Hi. Bi dude here. The LGBTQIA+ community is really not all that accepting of bisexuals, but does tend to be a bit more accepting of bisexual women. Bisexuals often get treated like we're fence sitting, like we havent accepted that we're actually gay or actually straight. And so we're clear, that's not a universal statement, but it is an experience that a lot of bisexuals experience within the LGBTQIA+ community
Doesn't help that a lot of this gets internalized, I think. Like, fuck, there are plenty of terms that seem reasonably descriptive of me (bi, demi, enby, etc.) but... I'm super straight passing, and not super driven by sex or romantic relationships, so it's like... I never really have to deal with these labels in my day-to-day? I stick he/they in stuff when people ask for pronouns, style myself somewhat androgynously, am well aware 90s David Boreanaz is objectively eye-candy, and I haven't gone on a date in... years, because I just don't really care. But claiming those labels feels improper, somehow. Both from a "born and raised christian, que toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia" perspective and a "I am in a position of extreme privilege where I haven't had to face many of the struggles common to the LGBTQIA+ community, claiming a place there seems insulting" perspective. /shurg
Conformity to masculine norms tied to higher levels of harassment in public, and expectation that mental help will be hostile to one’s core identity due to demonization of men for decades.
i can understand the second part of your statement, but the first part confuses me. are you saying that you'll be harassed more in public for being gender conforming vs e.g. wearing a dress? or do you mean something else?
Yeah I absolutely still don't understand what this supposed Bear meme thing is.. like I guess some girl chose to be in a room with a bear instead of in a room with a man? Was it just a meme? I have no idea what is going on or why everyone is so upset about it it seems like something to just divert attention away from something else
A bear is a known a danger and really doesn’t care about you unless you piss it off. In fact, loud noises might just scare it away even if a brown bear.
While most men are probably safe enough to have around, enough are unsafe or just generally give off that vibe that women don’t want to be alone with them and a loud noise won’t scare them away. You might “know” you’re safe but they have zero reason to trust you.
Sure she might get someone who wants to work together to be mutually safe and will make efforts to leave her be otherwise, but she might also get someone who stands just a bit too close, who starts trying to “help” just a bit physically, or even who starts to get frustrated when they don’t get some kind of reward for just being some minimum level of decent. And if they’re really unlucky they get someone who just sees the isolation of the situation as an opportunity.
The bear is a known quantity. The man could be anything and there are far too many examples of every part of the spectrum. At least the bear won’t sexually assault her even at the worst.
Well that's just ridiculous.. a bear is a wild animal who will fucking maul you to death and eat you and doesn't care about you at all ... a man is a human being, and human beings can be reasoned with.. I don't knoooooowwwwww........ this whole thing just, again, sounds like a way to get the masses riled up about something that really doesn't matter and doesn't really even make any kind of logical sense really in the grand scheme of things... it just seems like something to argue about for argument's sake.. it's a good debate topic but that's about it.. be it resolved that men are worse than bears?? LOL I don't know whole thing is kind of silly to me.. but thank you so much for your explanation of it
It's rage bait. It just a polarizing content meant to rile up the masses and make us argue and bicker. It takes some societal grievances and amplifies them needlessly.
There's plenty of polarizing content, especially online. I think it's a good idea to talk about how we react to it. There are reactions which amplify the polarization, but perhaps also reactions that bring people together in understanding each other? At least I hope so. I just don't know what is best, to ignore suspected bait, to argue a point, to listen, to call out bad faith actors. I don't know.
Wildly enough.... get ready for this one.. I'm a chick.
I took the time to say thank you so much for explaining it.
But you can't honestly genuinely tell me that you would rather be faced with a literal wild bear from actual nature, than another human being..... that's something for a therapist and not for the internet.... and if you're one of those chicks who genuinely feels that terrified of men, you need to speak to somebody because it's not natural.
And if you're one of those chicks that gets wildly crazily madly offended to the point where they think they'd rather be trapped in a room with a wild animal with teeth and Claws that see you as food then be around another human being with an opinion, you also need a therapist, because it's the internet. It's not life or death.. which it absolutely would be with a whole actual bear in the room.
A bear wouldn't possibly beat or torture me or rape me. A bear wouldn't try to kidnap me and lock me in its basement as its personal sex slave. A man might. A bear would simply try to eat me or run away, it's predictable. But go off about how it's totally safe to run into a strange man in the woods as a woman. 🙄
As a guy, I don't know shit about women, but bears are absolutely famous for being unpredictable. That's why they're considered dangerous. Not like moose, which are dangerous for being gigantic and incredibly dumb.
Bears also love in the woods, so it's pretty normal for bears to be there. There's a decent chance it's just minding its business. I wouldn't want to be around a bear, but I also wouldn't want to be around a man with bad intentions.
Humans are also absolutely famous for being unpredictable, fwiw
Like just rearrange your sentence... men also live on planet Earth so it's pretty normal for men to be there there's a decent chance it's just minding it's business I wouldn't want to be around a man but I also wouldn't want to be around a man with bad intentions do you see how shitty that sounds when you say you don't want to be around all men? Because of men with bad intentions? All bears will eat you not all men will rape you
This means nothing. We're talking about wild animals in their natural habitat. Most animals in their natural habitat want to be left alone. Humans are not natural prey or threats to bears, so they generally wouldn't want to fight or hunt a human.
don't want to be around all men? Because of men with bad intentions?
I think that's something that needs to be taken up with men (because it's impossible to pick out just the ones with bad intentions).
That's part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is the fact that being alone in the woods and spotting a bear minding its business sounds like a normal event. Being alone in the woods and spotting a strange man sounds like an abnormal event.
Bears don't really hunt humans. Some men do hunt women. And there's enough of them (and it could be any man) that a lot of women are afraid of strange men.
Another part of the problem is seeing a man in the woods and Assuming he's a murderer instead of thinking oh maybe he's geocaching or maybe he's hunting or maybe he's collecting mushrooms or maybe he's a photographer or maybe he just likes being in the woods or maybe he's going fishing or maybe he has a family that he's providing for or maybe he's an artist like there are so many other things to think of a man in the woods then oh my God this man is going to rape murder and stalk me to death I'm going to die. The 'othering' of men is an actual danger to society.
Men aren't raised by bears.. maybe we should take it up with the women who are raising the men.
I think you need to work on your perspective-taking skills.
It seems like what's happening is that women on social media are sharing that they feel inherently unsafe around strange men in remote and unexpected places, and your reaction is "That hurts my feelings as a man, and those women are wrong!"...
If you're not dangerous, that's great. Your feelings for assuming you're being generalized are valid.
If a woman reacts to you, unprompted, with fear, I think it's important to understand the reasons why she might react that way, rather than be angry about her fear. Frankly, getting angry at someone's fear would most likely reinforce that fear. And I think understanding would help reduce the anger you feel.
I see you're one of the 2/3 of women who haven't been sexually assaulted by a man. That's good, I'm glad for you. But, as a man and in view of those statistics, I have to say it's entirely justified for most women to prefer the bear.
That there is not true as well... I've been assaulted more than most.
I've been a sex worker.
But I've also been in the woods and seen what an actual bear looks like and did not fucking stick around. It's a bear.. I don't know what everybody doesn't get about that it's a bear.
Alright, so I'm on team "alone in the woods with a bear", but since you want to talk statistics, let's talk statistics and the heteronormativity embedded in your statistics.
The figure I'm familiar with is that 1/4 of women have been sexually assaulted. Maybe you have a figure that says 1/3, that's fine. But crucially, these figures do not say who did it. What you've made is an assumption that women only get sexually assaulted by men. Personally, I think that the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults on women are done by men. But not all. I don't believe you can transfer those two statistics - women sexually assaulted and women sexually assaulted by a man - 1:1.
Let me explain where I'm coming from. Half of transgender and nonbinary people have been sexually assaulted. That's double the number of women! This factor, double, is consistent across sources I've seen that investigate both figures with the same methodology. You might have a source that says 1/3 of women are sexually assaulted, that's fine, but the ones that investigate rates for both women and trans people say it's twice as many trans people.
I could go ahead and assume, if I wanted, that half of all trans people have been sexually assaulted by a cis person. That's the same assumption you made that 1/3 or 1/4 of women have been sexually assaulted by a man. But it's a bad assumption. I know lots of trans people who've been sexually assaulted, and most of the time it was by a fellow trans person. You see, trans people have our own community that's isolated from the cisgender dating scene as a matter of safety, and that means isolated, lonely people let their guard down around fellow transes and the victims can't get away from their abusers, nor are trans friends of trans abusers willing to give up a social network in which the abuser is embedded. It's messy and disgusting and it wouldn't be a problem if cis people just accepted us, but it's where we are. I would be wrong to assume all rapists of trans people are cis people.
And I read way too deep into your comment and got a vibe that you were making the assumption that all sexual abusers of women are men. You probably don't actually think that and didn't mean to make any kind of implication along those lines. So I'm just leaving this comment as a general reminder not to use heteronormativity to inform our statistical analyses.
Interesting perspective. It would be really mind-blowing to see the other side of the gender, even though I have no interest in being trans.
One thing I will add to this article is that men are also viewed as little more than bank machines after divorce. People always have the utmost sympathy for any mother who is separated from her children, even if only for a few days. Movie plots can revolve around mothers finding their lost children and being reunited. But for men? We’re only the providers, the ones who pay the child support.
I lost my kids (not legally, just boring old classic parental alienation) six years ago following the divorce. Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
The lack of emotional support for men mentioned in the article is another thing that really exacerbates divorces and leads to suicides. I do feel like if I were the type of person to contemplate suicide (I’m not), I would have definitely done it when my ex took my kids from me. And there would have been no male friends to pull me back from the edge. Those friendships are, to quote the author, superficial to a large degree, or even the ones that aren’t are men who are now focused heavily on their own families and wives.
I mean, it’s also true all the other stuff about the male privilege and feeling safe and the good things that come with being a man. But it’s nice to see the perspective of how we lack emotional support and we’re expected to grit our teeth and “walk it off.”
I’m sorry about the parental alienation you and your children have suffered, that’s terrible for everyone.
Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.”
I’m confused why you wouldn’t want him to see them. Isn’t in your best interest to have people who love you and think you’re a good dad in your kids’ lives? Somebody to counter the alienating narrative in whatever ways they can?
Oh I’m fine with him seeing his grandkids but he has no empathy for my situation, considering it a dispute between myself and my ex. He even shares details from his trips to see them, as though that wouldn’t hurt me to hear about it. His lack of empathy is the problem.
My mother, on the other hand, criticized my ex for the situation and was “cut off.” So, despite the fact I’m sad that my mother can’t see her grandkids because she, unlike my dad, did take sides, I feel like she had the empathy to stick up for her son and point out it the situation isn’t right.
I will also mention my brother was “cut off” because of his close associations with me.
I am very low contract with my mother and sister because they kept my ex as a friend after all her bullshit through the divorce. I put on a show for my son to have sort of normal family times at holidays, etc. but I mostly do not connect with them outside of time with my son. We are NOT friends.
So, internet stranger. I understand the crazy bullshit that comes with divorce for a man.
And it is amazing how quickly and thoroughly men are discarded after a divorce. Disposable indeed.
In a perfect world I could have had an amicable divorce from my ex and everybody could have stayed in touch and been happy.
Instead I had a “Michael Bay” divorce where everything went really explosive and badly. It’s sad because I see a lot of example – such as our own prime minister – who have a great divorce where everybody is respectful and mature and life goes happily on.
I’ve tried to explain to my dad how screwed up it is that he maintains a relationship with my ex despite my zero contact with my kids but he doesn’t care. Actually, he went to my exes wedding with her new husband last month, which involved him flying to my city. He didn’t visit me, which is really the extra cherry on the shit sundae.
Yeah, divorce was similar for me. I was discussing and considering collaborative divorce with my lawyer until I was served the restraining order...which I got dismissed. That started about 2 years of legal theater propelled by stupid amounts of money.
You do find out just how selfish your family is when you go through a divorce, don't you? And how little they really care about you.
At a certain point I went "Bush" on family/friends: If you're not for me then you're against me. I still think it brought me back to some sort of sanity in dealing with people. And taking the trash people out of my life.
In “theory” or “legally” I have 50-50 custody. In practice, it’s nearly impossible to enforce visitation with older children. My kids were 15 and 9 when we split. Immediately, the courts said enforcement on the 15-year-old was impossible. I spent a few years battling enforcement on the 9-year-old but she soon also became unenforceable. At a certain point you can’t win if the kids also don’t want to see you or make your visit a nightmare by passively resisting.
I was in the middle of one of these court battles when my daughter became anorexic and told the medical staff she didn’t want me to visit her in hospital. She was about 13 and that was the last I saw her.
Legally, I am a 50-50 parent but in reality the only thing I’m entitled to do is pay their mother $1,000 a month.
Not OP, but yes, obviously. It’s still different than being in their kids’ lives and even if the grandfather is supportive, it’s no replacement for direct interaction. I also think there is the question of weather the grandparent will be supportive of OP or protective of the relationship with the grandkids when faced with a difficult decision with regard to who they need to win favor with.
I hope I’m not intruding on men’s spaces here as a transwoman,
But after my transition that was one of the biggest, most drastic contrasts between the two binary gender’s social dynamics. Men just don’t get to talk about their feelings- whether it stems from homophobia or misogyny, men are generally seen as an island to themselves and if you display otherwise, it is seen as a weakness worthy of admonition and disrespect. There is still a societal expectation that men are supposed to be stoic, stable providers while women are increasingly allowed liberation. Hard fought, and rightly so but what’s the point of “equality” if we don’t lift everyone up to the same standards?
I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman. This just isn’t fair or right, regardless of the other privelages men may have. Justice is for everyone, not just minorities.
Yet, it is up to men to decide this. Yes, women can and should support you, but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.
*An edit for an addendum: I hope nobody reads this feeling that I’m blaming men, or being accusational. I want to clarify that I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.
I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman.
As a women that, granted, had some serious questions about gender in my younger years this has always blown my mind because it’s so multi-faceted.
Women are more emotionally supportive, but it can quickly spiral into an almost gross-feeling and superficial reinforcement. Everything seems to be “valid” or demands an emotion-ridden hullabaloo, whereas the men in my life have always been more direct and straightforward, unafraid to call out my general jack-assery or quip “yeah, that sucks” when there’s not much else to be said about my general state of affairs.
The flip side of this is that women tend to be more sympathetic/vocal to general life events and encouraging to mild up or down days, whereas men tend to cock an eyebrow and ask what you’re so excited/upset about when you show up to work “having feelings” on a random Tuesday because your spouse threw a fit about leftover spaghetti that morning.
The dichotomy is fascinating to me, to watch unfold every day with every interaction. I find myself (not correctly or incorrectly) leaning towards men in times of crisis (muted response), and towards women in times of -life in general- (exacerbated response) because it gives me the mean/median output of (normal human response).
However, this doesn’t mean men only have “regular” mode or “crisis” mode, or that women only live in an amplified wave of “normal” and “slightly less normal”, and I think that’s where we find our faults. Our definition of the masculine and the feminine revolve around a dead sun that no longer serves us well. Men ARE emotionally supportive, and women ARE reserved/stoic, it’s just not always what you expect at the time so it gets glossed over and deleted, to the detriment of everyone.
It’s not only a question of men. If you want a romantic relationship, you need to fit the society’s standards for the sex you are looking for. If women are looking for toxic virility, the sad truth is that men who embrace it will have an easier time finding a relationship.
This is not something you take from anyone. And this is the biggest problem many men have with the #metoo era: we acknowledge toxic masculinity is toxic and can even be deadly, but what is the alternative? There is none currently.
There is no model for modern men that is worthy of both modern men and women. This is why we have incels and other hardcore conservative going hard on hating women or even more toxic masculinity.
But I digress. The solution is not in a fight, it’s in acceptance from both men and women.
Thank you for sharing. I haven’t figured out the magic words to communicate this well. I worked at a company that proudly announced longer maternity care for newborns, an astounding (for the US) 6 months. Fathers got 2. I’m a dad and wasn’t going to have any more kids, but some of us spoke up and suggested that dads deserve time with their children as well. It was explained that mothers have special connections with children (nursing) and are genetically (yuck) more loving caretakers. Their brains are wired for empathy, so they deserve more time. Remember when we all agreed it was awful to say men are better at logic and reasoning? Me neither because it was so long ago. How is this okay? And we wonder why far more women drop out of the workforce to become full time parents.
There’s a theory that women quit to care for kids because they don’t have enough support, so let’s give them extra time off, extra health care benefits, recovery support, reinforcing stereotypes and gender roles. It’s the most ass backward approach to what should be the goal to encourage husbands to take larger roles in families. When a man speaks up, he’s part of the patriarchy, suppressing women’s voices. Women need to be heard and supported, not mansplained. If anyone can suggest how to change the conversation without being labeled a bully while simultaneously being bullied, I would love to learn.
First, this is a long comment, and I don’t want to come off as dissing it. I agree with you. Except for that concluding thought.
I used to think that that was true, women vs. men for voting rights. But about ten years ago, I wandered into the Berkeley Historical Society. They had a bunch of materials on display about the women’s suffrage movement, including just boxes of documents. One of the first ones that I pulled out was a poster for an anti-suffrage meeting. A meeting organized by women.
In fact, they had lots of documentation about anti-suffrage efforts by the society women of Berkeley. That completely shocked me, given Berkeley’s crunchy reputation. But I did more research later, and found that it was not at all unusual.
Up until the early years of the 20th century, most women were against it! Even when the 15th Amendment passed, a large minority of women still opposed it. As well, quite a lot of men supported it. (Obviously, they had, to since they were the ones voting to pass it.)
Anyway, the framing of the issue as women demanding the vote from men is oversimplified.
Rather than intruding, transitioned individuals ought to be seen as the strongest allies - on both sides of the fence. The lived experience you being to the table is tremendously valuable because it is so indisputably valid.
but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.
Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.
Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.
Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.
I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.
I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.
When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.
Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.
Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
That is the worst. So sorry you’re having to deal with that and not get support from the men in your life.
A story all too common. Someone I know mine got divorced a number of years ago. He’s a fun, charming, kind, decent looking fellow in good shape for his age, and I can’t imagine he did anything to deserve what happened. I don’t know all the details of their divorce, but I know all but one of his children was poisoned against him by his (now ex) wife, and it’s only because the one happened to be away long term at the time.
His ex has several advanced degrees and is more than capable of earning six figures. And yet, he was still ordered to pay her spousal support and a sizable chunk of his pension. The divorce and family court system is absolutely fucked for men and it’s a small wonder so many of them contemplate drastic measures when their lives are ripped away from them.
Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men and then conveniently “forgot” to balance out all of the exclusive rights women get just for being women.
Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men
Feminism hasn’t done that yet, we’re nowhere near equal rights and opportunities for women and if you don’t believe me, look at the gender balance in US government roles and who has the money and power.
Let’s focus on dismantling patriarchy and the harm it creates for men as well.
They can both be problems simultaneously, and it’s disingenuous to argue that there aren’t militant feminists pushing to keep all of the advantages from earlier eras.
This is a men’s lib forum, and men’s liberation is pro feminist (feel free to check the wiki or that nice bell hooks quote trending on this forum if you disagree).
By being a strong ally to women, men benefit too, and I choose to keep doing that.
You can have the last word if you like, I’m gonna peace out here.
This is BS, currently feminism looks to only strive after the cozy office places and various places of power. I didnt seen feminism once to call for equal numbers of female rig workers, construction workers, Alaska fishing jobs and similar… Feminists are mysteriously somehow always just after the lucrative office jobs…
Men's Liberation
Top