Men are advantaged in every aspect of our society, yet we have worse health outcomes for most of the things that will kill you
Found the problem: stop drinking the koolaid
Men are told they are “advantaged” in all aspects of society, but that take is 110% Apex fallacy and completely dismisses the losers in society, who are by and large men.
This is a societal wide level of gaslighting, mainly by feminism, to prevent men from seeking redress before they even knew they needed it
The “be a man” sexist narratives all have one thing in common: they treat masculinity as prescriptive, not descriptive
“This is the way a man should behave” instead of “this is how we observe men behave”
It’s about control. People are very sexistly invested in what men are “allowed” to be
And notice it’s not what the man wants to do, he wants to sit on the couch and play video games, putting in only enough effort needed to do that.
That doesn’t jive with other people, tho, they want that man to be financially productive so they can profit off of him. The prescriptions have nothing to do with what is good for that man, and therefore nothing to do with what it is to be a man.
All forms are simply different variations of “here’s the way to act that is best for me (not you, the man being talked to or about)”
Suggesting that the perfect attributes required to lead a major company just happen to coincidentally be those that are bestowed on white men is absurd.
Or that women specifically preference men who exhibit these traits, rewarding them with sex and status in ways that women generally are not and have not been rewarded for since our species first started to walk might relate to the skills necessary for success in a competitive field.
As it turns out, reality doesn't care about your delusions, or how unfair you feel it is
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Of course you don't, that's what people who are wrong usually do.
Many, but female aversion to physical and social risk is a broadly studied field that you are perfectly capable of searching yourself, and especially with the prevalence of cherry-picked studies i feel it's better you find one from a source you trust on your own.
so in an equal society we'd expect them to make up a very slight majority of fortune 500 CEOs, congressional representatives, supreme court justices and presidents
Well that's a load of bullshit.
You're treating all of those things as if they were a lottery, and women simply weren't considered.
They're not. ANY OF THEM
Every one of those positions has an army of men competing to be the next one in the seat. Ignoring all of that because you feel like women should have made it is just stupid.
Here's the facts for you: Even with blatant discrimination in women's favor, they still don't get into all the "positions of power" people try to cheat them into because those positions often still require work women by and large choose not to do
Work like taking risks, or being in the public eye and taking responsibility for failures that may not be your fault. Both things women avoid at far greater rates then men.
Edit:
And to be very clear, i'm not saying women can't, I'm saying they don't, won't, and will continue not to, in anywhere near the numbers men do, simply due to their personal choices.
This is why the focus on 'equity' is so fucking toxic. It's basically saying "all power in society should be evenly distributed, i was able to twist data around enough that it i can show a way women have less (ignoring all ways in which men have less), and unless women have all power that men have in equal rates, it's sexism!" and most of the people who say this with a straight face know full well it's impossible and the purpose of framing it this way is so they can continue to advocate for free shit, in perpetuity
Patriarchy just means "society", but sneaks in blaming men for any problems caused by it
Egalitarian is a word that means equality between all peoples, and that existed before feminism as a word, to give you an idea of how far back their sexist bias goes
"Toxic Masculinity" really is a victim blaming way to say "gender expectations placed on men by society, which are harmful to others but maybe sometimes we'll admit are harmful to the man subject to the abuse, but who gives a fuck about that guy he hasn't solved his own problems and instead made them known to others, how can we make him shut up?"
And for that last one we actually prefer the terminology feminism used before they realized it applied to men as well: "sexist gender roles and expectations"
It's feminist terminology meant to blame men for any and every problem, including problems men bring up. Even if they weasel out of it technically not meaning "all men are at fault and to blame", that is very much how it is used in practice, and certainly how this commenter used it to invalidate the emotions of OP
that "and women" part does not get said often enough
Most of these institutions were created by monarchies to keep the monarchies in power. The last monarch of any real note was a woman, and had decades of ruling time under her belt. This, however, still gets blamed on "patriarchy" and men as a whole, as if the men being subjugated were responsible for their own subjugation.
It's an extension of the hyperagency society forces on to men, and incredibly sexist to keep using the term "patriarchy" or especially to throw it in a victim's face, it's essentially victim blaming at that point. "Oh it was men who caused the problems so any problems you, as an individual man, face are your own fault!"
men do not benefit just from being men, they have to claw and compete and struggle to get to those positions of power, and usually once they they stop other men from getting in
It's the implication that this is a male issue, and that females would and do behave at all in any way better when in those same positions that we take issue with.
They don't, they wouldn't have, it's insanely sexist to believe otherwise, and insisting on using terms like "patriarchy" when we definitely don't live in one in western society and haven't for at least a century is incredibly problematic, especially when speaking to a victim of geocentrism and using it to dismiss his valid feelings.
if your anxiety is running crazy it's doing so for a reason
Often that reason is you keep dismissing the part of yourself whose entire purpose is to protect you from danger
What do you expect it to do but get worse? You're ignoring the alarm bell, all it can do is ring louder and harder.
"regulating" that signal is the exact wrong response, even in extreme cases. You need your fear and anxiety to regulate itself to be properly tuned to the danger you need to be aware of, which means more communication with your self, not less.
Emotional regulation (not suppression) is an important skill.
Wholeheartedly disagree. This is an unhealthy attitude to take.
Regulating your own actions is an important skill, and seeing and understanding how those actions relate to those emotions, that as well.
But your emotions are part of you, they are a part that deserves to be listened to and respected, and nothing in your response indicates you put in effort to do that.
Which makes sense. We, as men, are not at any point given the time or space to do so, and are often just physically beaten if our emotions are ever a problem for other people. It makes sense that repression and controlling them becomes the go-to for most
You run into a very serious contradiction in that value
What if fixing something that hurts men, hurts women?
It sounds flippant, but it's legitimately a problem men have to deal with.
As a recent example, in florida they are finally "ending" permanent alimony, and men now have their "right to retire" considered when adjusting payments.
Many, many, women depend in part or entirely on a man suffering and working on their behalf. If i want to help those men, to the perception of those women, i am harming them.
Even trying to equalize draft legislation in the states is technically "harming women"
So, given just those examples, i'm all for "harming" women, based on how they've defined it.
It means "men having power, or free of power women hold"
And if you run into the right ones, the mask comes off entirely. Just look at the production of The Power and you'll get plenty of great examples of misandry on display, proudly.
I suppose i'm trying to defend a position that's not my own, and yeah, using "men" to describe a system created by some men to advantage all (or at least white) men in a broad way is absolutely sexist - but it's hardly the main issue here.
the system wasn't created to advantage men, otherwise feminism wouldn't have happened.
The system was created to advantage the wealthy and powerful, and keep them that way. That they were white or male is incidental. Any other race or gender in that position can and will create the same problems.
Saying something ridiculously sexist like "There wouldn't be wars if society was run by women" or any other similar forms such as "the future is female" is just as braindead stupid as someone saying:
"Racism would disappear if X was run by Y people"
It's not the color or gender of the people, it's the incentive that the positions of power create to subjugate others.
Feminists actively promote the idea that just having women in power solves problems, and that is a blatantly stupidly sexist idea to believe.
