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?
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."
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.
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 have actually never felt entitled to these things. What I mostly feel is a responsibility. If something breaks I'm supposed to know how to fix it. Because of this I have become good at fixing things. If we are lost I'm supposed to find where we are, so I study maps before I go somewhere new. If a decision needs to be made, again, eyes turn to me, so I need to know a little about everything, and never look indecisive. If an unexpected expense comes up, I need to have money saved away for this purpose. The punishment for failing things like this is not disapproval from other men or feeling less masculine. The punishment is that I'm viewed as less by my girlfriend. This is how I think things go hand in hand. By helping women get empowered, we can share responsibilities. By women helping us feel valued for ourselves, worthy of love, desired as we are, we don't need to constantly fear being seen as less... then, I don't know. Maybe it would also lead to men feeling safer to be better human beings. The impossible dilemma now, for me, is that I'm still expected to be successful in the traditionally masculine things, while at the same time not being successful in the traditionally masculine things. No way to win.
Maybe I am hung up on the word, but I feel more forced into it. I don't feel bad about myself for failing to live up to that standard, it's more feeling unvalued as a person, as myself. It's an external invalidation.
As has been discussed already here in this community, the key takeaway from the bear hypothetical is that it is an opportunity to truly listen to the lived experiences of women under patriarchal systems. I encourage "first response" to the bear discussion to head back to this post, as I am looking for discussion kind of after...
I think a positive step can also be to think back and reflect a bit. Why did I react the way I did? When I first heard the hypothetical, it made me feel bad about myself. After that came a feeling of defeat. I was thinking "why even bother, whatever I do I'm the villain." I'm very afraid of bears, which may have played into this.
The main thing I've been thinking since then is that I find it easier to have empathy with people who show empathy to me. It's easy to think "well then, when they start showing empathy, so will I.", but it goes both ways, doesn't it? That made me want to influence this loop of causality, or what to call it.
I'll set my negative emotions to the side, and try to not contribute to the division between people. Maybe even manage to be a part in the positive direction. As I get older, the more I realize that I can't change the world, but I have a very deep wish to be a net positive somehow.
As for acting on the things I have learned, I don't really know what to do, and I hope this is a safe space for anyone who needs support.
I agree, This polarization is something I wish we had a strategy against. Or, at least, the knowledge to identify something as likely to result in heel-digging. The reason I believe we should discuss this meme here is not to figure out the statistics of wildlife, but to gain insights about how certain things affect us, and what type of response is desired and helpful.
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.
What you write resonates with how I feel too. It's not fair, is it? I think there's a discussion that must happen, in the future. But right now, it's too inflamed, it's not possible. Then the question is, how do we get there? Can we get there without losing ourselves?
That can never be the appropriate answer. I'm sorry if you sometimes feel like that. It can really feel like a situation with no way to win. Perhaps it's not about winning. In this case, something is being communicated. I bet that there are different things being communicated by different people, but using the same words. Someone might be trying to say "things in my past has made it difficult for me to trust men." Someone else might want to be edgy because they enjoy "kicking upward". We don't know. On the internet, the loud edgy people rule. In real life, most women I've actually talked to are much more understanding and willing to see the nuances and how complicated things can be. If the internet people are getting to you, a good exercise can be to talk to real people more. They don't want you dead. They probably want good interactions. Maybe every good interaction makes their fear diminish just a little.
There is hope, I think. I wanted to have sort of a meta-discussion about the question from a mens lib point of view. Like, this thing is circulating, it seems to be making many people upset, what is a healthy way to interpret or react to it?
it honestly feels like some of these dudes want nothing but to feel like the victim of the situation sometimes.
A part of this could be to recognize that they too might be trying to communicate something, wanting people to listen. The stalemate of mutual lack of listening. It's really a tricky, circular thing, and probably it's hard to just say "shut up and listen" to either side, when a precondition for listening is having trust that the other one will listen too.
I'm interested in increasing this trust between people. I also recognize that there is a level of feeling dismissed within me that makes me care less about others, and I assume that others could have that too.
If we could figure out a way to be at least a net positive in building trust and listening, then, well, step by small step, reinforcing the mutual feeling of trust, that would be good.
But sometimes it just feels impossible.
It's easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it's simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that's taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it's easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just "wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny", to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There's a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, "playful" sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it's cheered on and praised as a form of "girl power". If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I'm very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I'd like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.
There's a bit of... something, irony maybe, in my experience that I'm trying to be aware of. I can't judge a movement by the not-true-feminists while feeling hurt that I'm judged by what other men have done. Maybe there's a difference between an ideological label and a gender, but still. It's this generalization that feels similar. I know that when I am given compassion I am much more likely to care about others. And vice versa. Maybe I need to look past the loud not-true-feminists and try harder to see the points of the true feminists. Maybe they need to look past bad men and not treat me as a villain by default. It's this stalemate I feel locked into.
When I read this I kept anticipating some twist where the author would turn around and say "but... actually none of your problems matter and all the problems in the world is your personal fault". But the twist never came, and I think it was the first time I read a feminist author that seemed to genuinely care about me as a person. Not as an instrument for other purposes, but just because I'm a person in this world.
Why men feel like they can't abandon Masculinity
This discussion was inspired by discussion on this post....
Patriarchy harms boys and men, too. Helping them realize this is key to erasing toxic masculinity ( www.salon.com )
Next steps after the bear
As has been discussed already here in this community, the key takeaway from the bear hypothetical is that it is an opportunity to truly listen to the lived experiences of women under patriarchal systems. I encourage "first response" to the bear discussion to head back to this post, as I am looking for discussion kind of after...
About the bear...
So, I'm just assuming we've all seen the discussions about the bear....
The Perception Paradox: Men Who Hate Feminists Think Feminists Hate Men ( msmagazine.com )
The Will To Change Men, Masculinity, And Love By bell hooks ( archive.org )