Why feminists should stop using terms like "fragile masculinity"

LolwhatYesme · 2020-07-20T22:27:27+00:00

Absolutely agree. I'm sure the arguments here will be similar to those found in the thread about "toxic masculinity".

I'm tired of people trying to defend "key terms".

If someone comes up with an offensive term, they can try and defend it all they want to, but the term in itself, in its very constitution, will always be damaging and it will always (quite ironically) exacerbate the issues they are in fact trying to solve.

PsychoPhilosopher · 2020-07-20T23:18:30+00:00

This is a classic example of feminist theory overriding empathy.

There are plenty of women as well as men who treat emotions as weakness and avoid expressing themselves.

It's a common outcome for an abusive or neglectful childhood.

I.e. this has nothing to do with Patriarchy, and everything to do with people who have been damaged and harmed by an absence of love in their early lives.

Given the statistics on child abuse, it's actually very likely to be a function of abuse or neglect from their mother.

The obvious examples are that children who are punished for crying by a parent who doesn't want to deal with the interruption, or just neglected and ignored by caregivers, will learn that expressing emotion, particularly negative emotion, is either fruitless and without worth or even something that can only make things worse.

Instead of self righteous criticism, learning some accurate empathy is necessary.

Strikester101 · 2020-07-20T23:08:11+00:00

Expecting men to not react negatively to "fragile masculinity" is like expecting women to not react negatively to "ugly feminity".

ParanoidAgnostic · 2020-07-21T02:04:34+00:00

I think what you are talking about involves two related concepts: precarious manhood and toxic masculinity.

Precarious manhood describes the concept of being a man in our society. When a girl reaches a certain age she is considered a woman. The exact age is a grey area and she does spend a few years in a fuzzy girl/woman state. The point is that she doesn't have to earn womanhood.

A boy on the other hand has to demonstrate that he is a man. Ever wonder why we have the term "manchild" but never hear "womanchild?" It's not because every woman is super mature. It's because a woman doesn't need to prove that she is a woman. Not only does a man have to earn his manhood. He has to defend it. This is what makes it precarious. Manhood is an unstable state which is very easy to be knocked out of.

Why would anyone want to earn or defend their manhood? Because, being a man is the only way an adult male can have value in society. Once you age out of boyhood, if you have not proven yourself to be a man, you are seen as nothing and will be treated as nothing. This is something feminists get wrong. Men are not afraid of being women. They are afraid of being nothing. Failure to be a man does not make you a woman. Womanhood is not something a male can gain without deliberately transitioning and even that is not accepted by all of society or even all of feminism.

As an aside here, it should be noted that because manhood is based on action, you can see many examples of women being accepted as men. I don't mean trans men. I'm talking about women who still identify as women and are clearly still presenting as female but who are accepted as "one of the guys" due to them proving themselves in the same ways men must. I should note for completeness that in some cases gay men are exempt from some of the rules and are allowed to be one of the girls but they certainly won't be given then same consideration as women by other men.

How does someone prove himself a man? By performing masculinity. Now I need to clarify something here. There are two meanings of masculine which get conflated too often. Once describes behaviors and traits which are demanded of men. The other describes behaviors and traits which are associated with males. I am talking about the first meaning. These masculine behaviors and traits form masculinity. These are how you prove yourself a man. An example of the other meaning of masculine is gaming. If you picture a gamer. They are likely to be male. Gaming is seen as a masculine hobby. However, one does not prove oneself a man by gaming.

The consequences of failing to attain or maintain manhood put great pressure on boys and men to perform masculinity. This means that many men are performing masculinity not because it comes naturally to them and not because it is useful in the current situation but because they are afraid not to. This is the basis of toxic masculinity. It's not that any of these behaviors or traits are inherently toxic. It is the pressure to perform them even when it's not in anyone's best interest that is toxic. Being able to keep your emotions under control to get through a challenging situation is a very good skill to have. Feeling that you can't cry because that would make you less of a man is toxic.

Unfortunately, the term "toxic masculinity" is misunderstood, even by the feminists most enthusiastic about using it. It is misunderstood in two ways. First it is treated as something internal to individual men rather than something inflicted on men by society (both men and women). It is used to trivialise and dismiss men's issues. Every issue gets framed as toxic masculinity and the solution offered is that men just stop being so attached to masculinity. There's absolutely no recognition of the pressures to keep performing masculinity or the consequences for not doing so. The second way it is misunderstood is by thinking it is about the other meaning of masculine. In this way "toxic masculinity" is just used to mean "things men do that I don't like."

"Fragile masculinity" is a different concept. Although it also often misunderstood and treated as some version of precarious manhood which is purely internal to individual men. Unlike precarious manhood and toxic masculinity I do not think it is a useful or even valid concept. It is the idea that men react badly to feminism because their identities as men are fragile. That criticism of men is taken personally because their sense of self is weak. It is nothing more than an attempt to invalidate the feelings of men who get upset when they hear feminists vilifying men and shame them into silence.

Yes people tend not to respond well when you make insulting generalisations about a group they belong to. This should not be surprising. You aren't going to call it fragile blackness when a black person gets upset at someone calling all black people criminals.

bkrugby78 · 2020-07-21T00:31:16+00:00

It's like similar to the white fragility argument. BLM/SJW crowds basically want to be able to call white people racist and not have white people get mad at them. When white people get angry about being called racist, the term "white fragility" is applied in an attempt to shut the conversation down.

Essentially, calling a man fragile is a means to shut the conversation down, because most men will get angry at being called fragile. This is partly because no matter what kind of household you grow up in, being strong, confident and resilient are extremely valuable traits. This isn't just some western democracy thing, virtually every culture values these traits.

If a man is saying "emotions are a feminine trait" what you'd want to do is ask them "Why do you think emotions are feminine? What examples can you provide from your experience that tells you emotions are feminine?" Provide evidence to back up your statement.

peanutbutterjams · 2020-07-21T01:38:46+00:00

It leans into traditional notions of masculinity by saying the "good people" are 'un-fragile', or tough. If you're tough, you'll act the way we want you to. If you act different than we want you to, we'll call you weak.

It's sexist bullying.

MMDT · 2020-07-21T00:17:11+00:00

no "'MAAAAN" would say emotions are a feminine trait, but they would say to let your emotions control you is a feminine trait. there is a difference

I've never heard "enjoying things is gay" a single time in my life

I often think these menslib posts about why masculinity is harmful really just comes down to them not understanding or have any feel for it in the first place.

They make an awful lot of posts about "I hate that masculinity makes me feel bad for [completely tiny unnoticeable thing that only they care about]". The other day it was liking Wonder Woman and that got 1000+ up votes.

I think these people are just extremely self conscious, have no confidence and very few or no male role models in their life. So all their negative feelings about themselves they blame on "traditional masculinity" and that's the narrative with which they view the world. "I'm as thin as a stick and can barely lift 10lbs, I hate that traditional masculintiy makes me feel bad about that"

GaborFrame · 2020-07-21T00:56:20+00:00

I think the term is pure provocation. By arguing about it, you are only feeding the trolls.

NAWALT_VADER · 2020-07-21T03:56:18+00:00

I agree. I dislike that so many of these terms seem to be purposefully crafted to be adversarial. Aside from the general abuse of the terms and misuse in general internet forums, I think my biggest gripe is that there do not seem to be comparative examples to describe the so-called phenomenon in others, even when by technical definition of the terms there should be equal usage for all races and sexes.

For example, while the term "toxic masculinity" is heavily enforced by feminists, the same phenomenon in women is apparently termed "internalized misogyny". Why not "toxic femininity" too..? Hilarious hypocrisy.

jolly_mcfats · 2020-07-22T04:07:37+00:00

The big issue, in my view, is that these terms appear to be neologisms for precarious manhood, that strip a very important concept from precarious manhood. Precarious manhood is about norms, and consequences from defecting from those norms. People who use terms like fragile masculinity seem to me to be trying to shift all the agency to the men in question, and imply that there is no larger society complicit in creating and enforcing those norms. Worse, they imply that the men who perform negative male-marked behavior are silly for doing so, and that the consequences they fear are all in their head.

When you think about it, that linguistic shift moves it from describing a normative phenomena to creating and reinforcing those norms. It's pretty awful.

TheMedPack · 2020-07-21T00:23:49+00:00

I take no issue with terms like 'fragile masculinity' and 'male fragility' if they're used in the right spirit. There is indeed something fragile--sometimes the term used is 'precarious'--about masculinity. In the traditional system of gender roles, men are 'human doings' whose worth is always subject to revocation and who thus constantly need to prove themselves and thereby earn or re-earn their status and respectability.

The problem is when people talk about 'male fragility' as if it's some sort of moral failing on men's part, instead of talking about it as a manifestation of men's oppression.

hypercube885 · 2020-07-21T01:03:30+00:00

I mean, maybe she herself doesn’t use those terms and doesn’t like it when others do. But yeah, in general the double standards are awful. Far too often people don’t live up to what they claim their values are.

mhandanna · 2020-07-21T09:38:04+00:00

Terms like this, and pretty much most analysis by feminists on male gender are highly flawed as they are idealogues (and the originators of these dworkin, millet, solanas, mackinon were all mentally ill, abused, SEVERE daddy issues etc.). Feminism trying to solve gender issues is like thinking ISIS can fix healthcare or combat islamophobia just because they are somewhat islamic. Feminist is somehwat pro woman, yet it wont solve anything as they are idealogically possessed. Feminist also PROMOTES gender roles (see post 2)

If feminism bang on about this stuff I'd use their own concepts back and say it femsplaining. OK dear, thanks for explaining masculinity to everyone. Its either hate filled feminists using it, or braindead college kids who would recite mein kampf if you taught it to them in university.... gender studies is made for kids like that.

One frequently touted benefit of feminism for men is that it frees them from their gender roles like the stigma of crying. However, one go-to method for mocking or attacking men is to label them cry-babies, whiners, complainers, or man-children, labels that clearly have roots in shaming of male weakness and gender role non-compliance. This is evident in a common feminist “male tears” meme, which originated with the goal of making fun “of men who whine about how oppressed they are, how hard life is for them, while they still are privileged”. It’s been used by feminists Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti (first picture), and Chelsea G. Summers (second picture)MIT professor Scott Aaronson opened up on his blog about the psychological troubles he experienced after internalizing negative attitudes about male sexuality, which partly came from the portrayed connection between men and sexual assault in feminist literature and campaigns. He was clear he was still “97% on board” with feminism. Amanda Marcotte responded with an article called “MIT professor explains: The real oppression is having to learn to talk to women”, which included a “cry-baby” picture at the top. Another “cry-baby” attack comes from an article on the feminist gaming website The Mary Sue.

Another example of this general attitude is the #MasculinitySoFragile Twitter hashtag used to “call out and mock stereotypical male behaviors that align with the feminist concept of ‘toxic masculinity,’ which asserts that certain attributes of the Western machismo archetype can be self-detrimental to those who embrace them”. It’s like challenging beauty standards for women with #FemininitySoUgly; that doesn’t challenge those standards, it reinforces them.

Many feminist approaches to sexual assault and domestic violence reinforce gender traditionalism by downplaying or excluding anything outside of the “male perpetrator, female victim” paradigm. Mary P. Koss, an influential feminist voice on rape (and professor at the University of Arizona), says that it is “inappropriate” to say that men can be raped by women. She instead calls it “engaging in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman” (“The Scope of Rape”, 1993, page 206). For domestic violence, the article “Beyond Duluth” by Johnna Rizza of the University of Montana School of Law describes the Duluth Model, an influential domestic violence prevention program in the United States that takes a “feminist psycho-educational approach” to the problem.

Practitioners using this model inform men that they most likely batter women to sustain a patriarchal society. The program promotes awareness of the vulnerability of women and children politically, economically, and socially.

According to Rizza, the Duluth Model is the most commonly state-mandated model of intervention, and the only statutorily acceptable treatment model in some states.

11.5 How do some feminists apply a hyper-critical attitude towards men?

In recent years, a certain segment of feminists has developed slew of terms aimed at being specifically critical of men’s thoughts/behaviour like “mansplaining”, “manspreading”, “male privilege”, “male entitlement”, “toxic masculinity”, “male narcissism”, “manslamming”, “manterrupting”, “manstanding”, “bropropriating”, and “check your privilege” (which is used to ask men to reflect on their biases, but not women). Women do not receive this same critical treatment (at least from feminists; there are places on the internet where people take a similar hyper-critical attitude to women with ideas like “female solipsism”, but they’re widely considered misogynists).

One example of the hyper-critical language and attitude is the Jezebel article on “male narcissism”. The response to the 2014 Isla Vista killings by Elliot Rodger provides many other examples, like a Feminist Current article on “male entitlement”, a Salon article on “toxic male entitlement”, and an AlterNet article on “Aggrieved White Male Entitlement Syndrome”. “Manterrupting”, “manstanding”, and “bropropriating” can be seen in the TIME article “How Not to Be ‘Manterrupted’ in Meetings”. Could you imagine any of these outlets writing articles on “female narcissism”, “female entitlement”, “woman-nagging”, or women being “femotional”?

Author Warren Farrell provides interesting insight into this phenomenon from the decade of his life that he spent as a feminist (from his book The Myth of Male Power, introduction).

“[…] I wondered if the reason so many more women than men listened to me was because I had been listening to women but not listening to men. I reviewed some of the tapes from among the hundreds of women’s and men’s groups I had started. I heard myself. When women criticized men, I called it ‘insight,’ ‘assertiveness,’ ‘women’s liberation,’ ‘independence,’ or ‘high self-esteem.’ When men criticized women, I called it ‘sexism,’ ‘male chauvinism,’ ‘defensiveness,’ ‘rationalizing,’ and ‘backlash.’ I did it politely-but the men got the point. Soon the men were no longer expressing their feelings. Then I criticized the men for not expressing their feelings!”

https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/

BannanasAreEvil · 2020-07-21T13:56:54+00:00

What's interesting to me is how the terms "Fragile Masculinity" and "Pink Tax" are the same things, but one is making fun of men and the other is being a victim.

When a woman buys a pink razor instead of a blue one and pays more for it, its "bullshit" and a "tax" paid for simply being a woman. Yet a man not buying a pink razor and instead buying the blue one is fragile masculinity.

A man buying a shampoo that smells like leather and pine with a picture of a fast car on the bottle is exhibiting "fragile Masculinity". A woman buying a shampoo that smells like lavender and vanilla but the bottle is pink instead of basic white is paying a "Pink Tax".

Basically if men want to pay more for something that looks masculine its considered fragile masculinity. If a woman wants to pay more for something that looks feminine then it is a "pink tax".

Again, this is just another example of how men are responsible for our own problems but society (mostly men) is responsible for womens. This mindset is why men get so little help, why we have no shelters for our abused and homeless and women have access to these services in abundance. Until we can stop blaming men for what ills us and what ills women and give men the same support being offered to women then we are not equal and terms like Toxic Masculinity and Fragile Masculinity are just tools used to prevent us from getting the help we not only need but deserve.

Egalitarianwhistle · 2020-07-21T01:58:18+00:00

IT was never about helping. That part was gaslighting. It's about raw power. They will continue to hurt men until they they rule society and then they will hurt men more.

whosthatcreep · 2020-07-21T08:44:12+00:00

What do you expect? The same people telling me to open up about my feelings sell cute "I drink male tears" mugs and stuff lie that. I feel gas lighted.

romulusnr · 2020-07-21T09:10:44+00:00

The person is saying that "fragile men" is "men who refuse to show weakness" and you've managed to invert that to mean "weak men" when that's exactly the point.

SonnBaz · 2020-07-21T20:12:43+00:00

It isn't about sticking to claimed principle but to de-legitimize critics. That's what the phrase exists to do,not about promoting any ideal of helping men.

Leinadro · 2020-07-22T14:47:04+00:00

Even if they don't stop using such terms I think they could help things along in 2 ways.

You know how feminists are so quick to say to the effect of, "If a woman tells a man something is sexist, don't argue against it just listen and take it into consideration."? Well feminists should really practice what they preach.
If they do 1 then the next thing to do is "not get defensive" but to listen to the commentary and work to adjust their arguments. And this doesn't necessarily mean stop using the term altogether but maybe work on being more clear on what they mean when they use the term.

lovenotprostitution · 2020-07-25T06:03:38+00:00

This is so fucking simple. But nobody listens, and we get banned.

Ender_Skywalker · 2020-10-03T06:58:50+00:00

Maybe it wouldn't be so fragile if you stopped kicking it all the time.

Sonic-Oj · 2020-07-21T02:20:41+00:00

I don't like the term, "fragile man", but I don't really mind "fragile masculinity" because it makes fun of how fucking restrictive masculinity is, like the fact that you can't do certain things as a guy or else it's "gay".

Ciceros_Assassin · 2020-07-21T03:01:28+00:00

Question for the community: is this endless litigation of terminology achieving any goals vis-à-vis material men's issues?

MVenture · 2020-07-21T02:09:21+00:00

I disagree. I think you can never a million people to agree on what one definition any expression means.

Think of the words General Relativity. Now maybe you could get a million astrophysicists at a convention, and they would all understand the math and equations, but they would still disagree on what it means. Do the equations say something about the underlying reality, or is that a completely meaningless question? Still disagreements.

And it doesn’t get better with common words. Just say “tomato is a fruit,” and I’m sure a local historian will be happy to expound on how the definition of fruit has changed over the decades.

If feminists find a use for ‘fragile masculinty’ let them use it. In a sense, it is upon everyone else to criticize the concept - and ideally feminists would welcome that process outside their own clique.

But then you run into the political problems of movements, and I’m definitely naive about those

Title	Why feminists should stop using terms like "fragile masculinity"
Author	OkLetterhead9
Upvotes	107
Comments	117
Date	July 20, 2020 10:19 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/huv5fh/why_feminists_should_stop_using_terms_like/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/why-feminists-should-stop-using-terms-like-fragile.1063094 https://theredarchive.com/post/1063094

Comments