If I could add one thing to presidential debates it would be making the participants life a 40lb test weight like they do when you interview with a shipping company. People don't have to care about how well they do, I would just like to see it.
One of the most interesting things about Trump is that you never have to mention his name; just describe something third rate or inane and people know.
Right after the 2016 election there was a panel discussion that included the creative teams behind all the biggest political shows on TV. House of Cards; Veep; The West Wing; Scandal, and all the rest.
Every person up there said the same thing; if they'd had a character who said that 'he liked soldiers who didn't get captured' the networks and advertisers would have demanded that the character be shown as being hated by all Americans, and thrown into the gutter.
There are other reasons not to want to. I like being self-sufficient. I like knowing that I could keep myself and those around me more safe if there was a threat. Etc. My environment would probably be fine with me if I did not want those things-- or at least I've never considered whether they would, because it's not repercussions that make me want to be me.
I think the difference between "I can't" and "I don't wanna" is big enough to be worth splitting. For instance, when trying to think of reasons for men that "can't" abandon masculinity, you're looking for externalities (pressure). If you think about why don't men "want to", you'll find plenty of self-serving reasons and rationalization, which in my opinion is a more realistic framing.
A large percentage of women actively prefer many of the behaviors we're describing as "toxic". The majority of my casual partners have explicitly requested, or discussed how attractive they find, borderline abusive behavior: physical aggression, jealousy, catcalling and infantalizing language, relentless pursuit, etc. My first girlfriend told me to be less respectful with her, and lost a lot of attraction toward me the first time I was emotionally vulnerable with her.
So a big problem is that while a vocal portion of women are telling men that certain gender norms are toxic and they need to stop, they're watching the women they're pursuing choose the men who exhibit this toxic behavior. At the end of the day, without any guidance from feminists, they have to choose between what the feminists tell them, and what the pick-up artist types tell them. The pick-up artists promise them romantic success, the feminists call them toxic for feeling entitled to romantic success.
With sexual/romantic success being the primary motivator for young men, is it really a surprise that they make the choices they make?
This is absolutely true and I'm always surprised there isn't more acknowledgement in progressive women's circles. Simple polling shows that roughly a third of women hold all men to these standards but there are significantly more who exclusively apply it to potential partners (speaking from a very US-centric perspective).
The honest solution is that women who think this way are simply not good partners, and should be avoided to whatever degree is possible.
I guess it becomes a matter of strategy. Maybe progressive women aren't the ones who need to hear it the most, and they may feel offended at the suggestion that other women could be part of reinforcing the patriarchy. It mirrors the way men are asked to shut down other mens sexist remarks and actions. I'm sure such behavior is prevalent, but I never witness it. So the question to me is, how do we communicate this whole thing to women as a group? The ones willing to listen aren't the ones who need to hear it, and the ones who need to hear it are probably not willing to listen.
I would disagree that women who think this way ought be discounted any more that you should say "Don't date a man that loves big boobs and can't arrange furniture to save his life".
Ultimately we as a species are stuck with the sex drives we've got. Whilst some effort can be made to rise above them, (and to recognise potential partners who don't) I think we also need to find healthy behaviours that can scratch the same itch as the toxic ones.
Jealousy is fine if stated frankly and honestly, rather than manifesting in surviellance. Relentless pursuit is fine in the framework of formal flirtation, not on a street with stranger. You oughtn't manhandle where uninvited, but it's no sin to be physically fit enough to be capable of it.
There's a confusion happening. I think people are thinking "toxic masculinity" means all masculine traits are toxic, and I feel that's not the case.
It's not that masculine traits are good or bad, it's that they become "toxic" when they become dysfunctional.
For example, a masculine trait is being able to endure hardship, to be kind of stoic. This can be a positive trait when working out, instead of whining to everyone about how heavy weights are you keep going and finish your set. It can be negative when you feel like you can't cry at a funeral, trying to be manly when you're sad.
The solution, in my opinion, isn't to act less manly but embrace other aspects of manliness. Instead of refusing to cry, you can embrace the idea that men will do as they want regardless of the negative opinions and doubts of others, and cry as much as you want at a funeral.
It's not effeminate to cry at a funeral, and is now a manly thing to cry at a funeral.
So yeah, women like masculine traits (at least the women who like men tend to), but they don't like it when people use the excuse of masculine traits hurt them, people around them, or the men they love.
The majority of my casual partners have explicitly requested, or discussed how attractive they find, borderline abusive behavior: physical aggression, jealousy, catcalling and infantalizing language, relentless pursuit, etc.
What they say they want is usually not what they want. Let me take your examples apart:
physical aggression,
The actually attractive thing is being able to hold your own, and be self-directed. Anger and aggression are a pale imitation of that preferred by some women because they've never seen anything off the doormat - douchebag axis. Or, differently put: You can't be peaceful while being harmless. If she prefers a bit of a thrill loom there like a rollercoaster handing out tickles if you dare to get on.
jealousy,
Is a pale imitation of loyalty. It's what passes as attachment in lieu of meaningful connection, as relationship security in lieu of figuring out what both of you want from your own and the other's life.
catcalling
Yes she wants to be considered attractive. She likes compliments. We all do... at least from the right people, in the right situation, for a thing we want to be complimented for. The trick is to be able to mind-read :)
and infantalizing language,
That's about being cared for, having space to not have to care about things, space to stop adulting. If she generally fails at adulting that's a red flag, if she has her shit together, heck, why not, I can make pancakes with happy faces on them.
I feel like external pressure is only half the problem. It is important but IMO the role model is also a problem. Non toxic masculinity is often describe in the negative of the toxic masculinity : you're good when you are not toxic, not when you are something positive.
In some way it is less restrictive, but in other way it is missing the model.
The other side of this coin is the corruption of the ideal that lead to nihilism. Toxic masculinity corrupts ideals. Violence is strength. Protecting is necessarily the destruction of the threat. Independence is power. Smart is manipulation and deception. Everything is to be seen through a lens of domination and power. And that is the core of the problem.
Instead, a model is to be seen with any quality, but through another lens. Strength can help the weak. Smart can disarm an explosive situation. Power is to be shared and used wisely. Basically, a model opposite to the toxic masculinity can be many things with all the qualities of the virility, but the difference is that they will be used and targeted differently. And for many people, it is to be learnt through a model.
This is a core problem because for many people, if you tell them to drop the toxic behaviour, there will be nothing left to aim for, nothing for them to transform into.
And this goes back to the social validation you're talking about. Going from toxic to positive requires a transformation so that the qualities someone has can be positive instead of negative, but as qualities they can still be praised and admired.
My problem with this is these new qualities are just as likely to be used to build a toxic hierarchy. The problem seems to me to be not just the qualities themselves but the competitive nature that is more or less beaten into boys at a young age.
Ultimately, relationships often depend on it. Many men in my life are fine and comfortable when I express vulnerability or weakness. Though when I do in relationships, it often goes sideways. Decision making, certainty and very positively received. Alongside that, recent relationships respond positively as they prefer a submissive role.
The woman in my life have generally maintained this type of role.
For further clarification, physical violence hasn't been required or welcome in adult life. Barely seen a usage since school.
By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.
You mention some examples, like defending your partner from a mugger, calling out your boss when treated unfairly, paying for meals, etc.
Let's say a man stopped doing those things, what do you think the immediate and short term consequences would be?
What about: give the mugger what he wants instead of starting to fight him. This would keep your partner and you out of harms way.
There is also no need to call out your boss when he treats you unfairly. Just keep a paper trail and let his/her boss deal with the situation as it is their job.
There is no good reason that men are by default paying for meals.
I agree that those are sane approaches. I do think that there can be immediate unintended consequences. If someone didn't pay for a meal, there's propably less chance of a second date. Etc.
I imagine women went through similar consequences while entering traditionally masculine jobs and behavior.
What I'm getting at is that I think that we often think that this pressure is all in our minds, and to some extent that's true, but there are many stories of men opening up and being vulnerable and then their partners lose attraction. That's a hard sell to young men. "Yes, you will be alone forever, but it's necessary because in a couple of generations from now things might be better."
That mode of thinking only works if you assume all potential partners are the same. There are women who don't want, nor expect, the guy to pay for everything. There's stories of relationships getting better when men open up and women really appreciating that. Saying you'll be alone forever is not only a hard sell but also a lie.
Yes, that's a good point. And maybe sort of the reason I'm interested in these topics, is trying to figure out how to influence the social circles around me.
Shelter, security, sex, and food... These are the core requirements for existence.
If someone sees a better outcome in terms of core requirements from new behavior they are more likely to try that behavior. Demonstrate the better way to be, and people will follow.
This gets back to Foucault’s internalized panopticon, although I don’t recall Foucault ever extrapolating the idea to gender norms. Yes, it’s external pressure but it becomes internalized
Damn, the author really hit the nail on the head with this one.
On the other side are progressives and liberals, who, according to Emba, are hesitant to say much of anything about men, especially white men, much less speak empathetically about their struggles
Being raised in the 00s when this sort of thing was on the rise, my mother was especially defensive about boys being left out. From a young kid's perspective, I just assumed many teachers didn't like boys, but it still kind of hurt to be treated like a fuckup. Years later, I understood why she was so annoyed at the anti-male behavior of the 00s and 10s.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing continued throughout highschool and college, with community meetings in highschool that essentially blamed rape on men, or special trips that female students were allowed to go on, but male students were not (science conventions, etc).
While I never felt the corrupting force of the Jorden Petersens and Andrew Tates of the world, I completely understand why men in different situations might feel this way. Some friends were swayed by those types for years, and turned over a new leaf when shown empathy and kindness. But that was not an overnight change. It takes awhile to undo that hurt.
The only place where boys were consistently not told they were fuckups was Boyscouts. Boys made mistakes there. They learned there. And it helped them get through tough times or work through shitty personalities. The ones that looked the least redeemable actually became incredible leaders, empathetic people, and people who now give back to society in surprising ways.
There are probably other avenues for boys and men, such as having boys start school a year later than girls. Having spaces where they can make mistakes in a fairly controlled environment, and express emotions would help. Recently, I posted a thread asking about physical affection between men and got some surprisingly good answers. So I think we will get there. At the end of the day, the vast majority of people are normal. Most just want to be treated warmly and will reciprocate that :)
This is going to be counter intuitive: being a POS is something some people want. They especially want it if it promises them comfort, luxury, or status.
I mean, look at all the trash people consume everyday despite how bad it is for them. We all know it's bad. Still, we gotta have it.
Being a POS is like drinking soda with no one to tout the benefits of drinking straight H2O. The left needs to make drinking water sexy!
Bad analogy. My choice of beverage does not affect other people.
Treating people with basic respect and as equals is no one's responsibility to "make sexy". Let's say the convo was about being racist. Is it someone's responsibility to make it cool to treat another person as an equal? Or would you be bigoted because it just how things are?
Yeah, I get it. It's really hard to understand. It's just basic respect, right? How could someone not value basic human decency?
I can't answer that question. All I know is that some people just don't.
It doesn't make sense to me that domestic abusers will beat up someone that loves them, yet it still happens. Politicians push legislation that they know will hurt their constituents, yet they still push it. Parents will try to force the lifestyle they desire for their children on their children out of love, even as it alienates their children, yet they persist. Some (many/all??) criminals know what they do hurts other people, yet they still commit crime.
I don't get it either. I only know basic human decency isn't valued by a lot of people. And you can indignantly scoff at such people all you want, incredulous that they just don't get the basics of empathy, a fundamental human emotion. They'll hurt others all the same.
Me, though? Drawing on my empathy, I hope such people find the happiness and freedom they're looking for without the pain and suffering they cause.
It boggles the mind doesn't it? The left tells them what behavior is unacceptable. So they ask how they're supposed to behave. But the left already told them what was unacceptable. Then they get upset when the people who told them how to behave react to negatively to them acting ignorant.
If men really need to be told how to behave at all. There's no hope for men's liberation. If you don't know what patriarchy and misogyny is. You shouldn't be taking part in any debates activism or discourse on the subject. At least not until you've gone and educated yourself.
And to those who really don't know or would actually like to understand. Asking how you're supposed to behave is the wrong way to go about it. You can behave however you like as long as you don't act misogynist and patriarchal. Don't imply someone must be a certain way or can't do a certain thing because of who they are. For example I think most guys would get a little upset if someone assumed that they were an ignorant caveman incapable of learning.
If you really have to ask. The best way to ask is to be genuine. To tell anyone acting offended that you're aware some of the behaviors Etc that you've been raised with are problematic. And that you are doing your best to understand when they are and learn to not do that. And then ask the person to help you understand what Behavior it was that upset them. You'll have infinitely more success and much better answers that way. Just by being sincere.
And in turn, I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying that young people should just figure things out for themselves, and asking why it should be someone else's responsibility to provide them with guidance.
The act of people calling out toxicity is the guidance. It is corrective action. It's disciplining a child.
Your orgional comment reads
Toxic man: doing something toxic
The left: Don't do that is toxic.
Toxic man: what should I do instead?
The left: ???? WTF ????
Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren't going to tell me what to do.
The answer is literally stop doing that thing. Obviously people need role models, young people are going to make mistakes, and when they make mistakes they need to be corrected. It is on the person to change their behavior. It isn't a failure of "the left" from preventing this behavior, it's a failure of those acting poorly to correct their behavior after being called out for it.
I just don't understand how someone can write a comment implying it's "the lefts" fault for not elevating people out of the absolute shit hole wasteland of ethics and behavior the GOP and right wing personalities have created. Like damn maybe you right, people like Andrew Tate are really a failing by left wing ideology to prevent them from spouting toxic nonsense.
It's literally right there, just a couple of posts up from this one. There's no excuse for misrepresenting it.
Here's what I actually said:
The left: “The patriarchy and toxic masculinity are evil and destructive!”
Young men: “Okay. What should I do instead then?”
l>The left: “Fuck off!”
I didn't stipulate "young" men by accident - that's the central point. I'm not talking about adults who have already developed a set of behaviors (which makes your first sentence entirely and completely wrong). I'm talking about young people - people who are lost and confused and casting about for guidance, as virtually all young people are (and not coincidentally, that's also what the linked article is talking about).
And ironically enough, you actually provide an example of the problem insofar as you don't even acknowledge the distinction - you just lump them in with overtly misogynistic and toxic adults and condemn them each and all. You not only refuse to provide them with the guidance they want and need, but bristle self-righteously at the very thought that there might be any expectation that you should.
And meanwhile, people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate go out of their way to recognize them and cultivate them. And it works not least because you've already written them off.
Which is pretty much exactly my point, and the point of the linked article. We need to do more than simply assume that young men are automatically misogynists and therefore condemn them. We need to provide them with something positive - an actual path that they can follow that leads to a better way of living. They're right there, right now - at the crossroads in their lives, wondering how they should go about growing into adults, and Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate and their ilk are right there, right now, telling them a bunch of toxic bullshit.
And meanwhile, what are we offering them? Just what you said here - the presumption that they're already toxic, and a bland command to knock it the fuck off.
I have to say I think your comment is very well written. You are much better with words than I. However, I fail to see where I am lumping people together.
Like I understand there is some discontinuity between your orgional comment and my approximation of how it comes across. I get what you are saying about swapping "young man" for "toxic man" and see how it seems I conflated the two. But the answer to their question is still "dont act like this". I am clearly not insinuating that all young people are automatically misogynistic just because the word was omitted. People acting misogynistic are (intended or not) perpetuating misogyny and if they fail to respond to correction, even if not directed at them, is not the failure of the left.
I am not sure what you meant by "makes your first sentence completely wrong". If you are referring to my use of "child" it was a euphemism comparing how social backlash for poor behavior is akin to disciplining a child.
It's clear that you want the best for young people and to keep them out if the right wing ideology. But blaming it on "the left" and not the source of the probelm is just ridiculous.
Edit: Deleted my last sentence about positive role models because it was incorrect. And added stuff below.
After thinking about your comments overnight I understand what you are saying and agree. The left needs to do more to educate and guide young people.
I am not sure what you meant by “makes your first sentence completely wrong”.
Sorry - I should've made that more clear. I meant the first sentence of your summation of what I said - the part I quoted. It went wrong immediately because you started with the presumption of an already toxic man doing something toxic, for which he's then condemned. But I was talking about young people - people who haven't established an adult personality yet - who are still feeling their way through life, trying to figure out who and what they want to be.
And to your edit - there's nothing I value more in a discussion/debate than honesty,cand not just the surface homesty of telling the truth as one sees it, but the deeper and much more rare intellectual honesty of actually considering what the other person has said, rather than just rejecting it out of hand. So thanks.
Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren’t going to tell me what to do.
The reason this comes up is that masculinity is largely based around externally conferred social status. You have to constantly be doing something to maintain an image of masculinity. Often this means some sort of social or physical violence in the right time or place (beat up the mugger to defend your partner, call out your boss when you're being treated unfairly, put rival men in their place). Just as frequently, however, it is the expectation of a certain amount of self sacrifice (paying for meals, military service). What they don't understand is how anyone can expect them to maintain their social status when they are avoiding this role that they have been explicitly shown that there will be consequences if they fail to meet. The answer is simple: once you're out of the masculinity rat race, you're out. By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.
The only problem is that all of these pressures are external in the first place and this whole dynamic creates strong social gender boundaries. It is very easy for a lot of men to look at their social circles and see exclusively people who punish them for a failure to live up to a masculine ideal.
What the fuck do you mean by "the left"? I don't remember any leftist political party in my country adopting any such program. Or for you "the left" is random people on tumblr or something?
The left is far less monolithic than the right. It was a sub-subset of the left, a percentage of feminists were/are anti male. Unfortunately, they were not called out for this, and so got very loud about it. This coloured the message from general left leaning sources.
Growing up, there was a lot of "men are bad/evil" and that we needed to make it up to women. A lot of this pressure came from left leaning sources.
Thankfully, I managed to avoid getting drawn into the right leaning backlash to this.
I love to see this. Genuinely warms my heart. Raising emotionally healthy, well adjusted young humans who can advocate for themselves, express their emotions, and relate to others in a healthy way is vital. And it feels like we raise young men in a way that sets them up to fail in these ways.
This isn't a comparison to the severity of issues women face. I just think its one of MANY issues that culturally need to be addressed with respect to gender and socialization. Boys and young men deserve to be raises in a way that facilitates feeling valuable, having healthy self esteem, and feeling safe in expressing emotions.
“When I was younger, I was cute,” he says. “When I got older, I became a threat in the eyes of others. To feel that you’re perceived as a threat – in school, walking down the street – it eats you alive. It’s soul-sucking. It’s draining. It’s anxiety-producing. It etches away from the love that you have for yourself.” I felt this in my bones
Men's Liberation
Hot