~ archived since 2018 ~

Misandry and Emptiness: Masculine Identity in a Toxic Cultural Environment

PeonSupreme

May 9, 2022

10 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Misandry and Emptiness: Masculine Identity in a Toxic Cultural Environment
Author	PeonSupreme
Upvotes	10
Comments	11
Date	May 9, 2022 12:13 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uletr5/misandry_and_emptiness_masculine_identity_in_a/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/misandry-and-emptiness-masculine-identity-in-a.1114963 https://theredarchive.com/post/1114963

Comments

[+]Sailbad_the_Sinner30 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sailbad_the_Sinner30 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sailbad_the_Sinner30 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sailbad_the_Sinner30 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sailbad_the_Sinner30 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

You want a list of this article’ problems? Here we go…

“The point here is that not much of this pre-feminist scholarship was the result of any specific interest in men, let alone bias in favor of them.”

Wrong. There was no specific interest in men, but there was indeed a huge bias that men were the only people who really counted, who were doing anything interesting. The author is either incredibly naive here or writing in bad faith when they describe all the factors that gave a HUGE bias in anthropology to what were, effectively, studies about men, and then handwave this away as “not bias”. Not even their own logic makes sense here.

They are more correct when they say these studies were often about relatively elite men, but there were plenty of studies where this was not the case. The author thus begins by making huge, sweeping generalizations that are only convincing to people who don’t know the history of sex and gender within anthropology.

This is lazy scholarship, right out the gate.

Would you like me to go on?

Then there’s his “invitation”:

“We began our research on men with the following hypothesis, which we invite social scientists to verify or falsify on empirical grounds: that no person or group can have a healthy identity without being able to make at least one contribution to the larger society, one that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued.”

Look good, right? He even says “empirical”. But tell me: what testable hypothesis is he actually proposing here? Also, why does identity need to be based on a “distinctive, necessary and publicly valued contribution”? How could we even properly measure what such a contribution is, let alone if it meets any of those criteria?

Here he is using scientific-sounding weasel words that are impossible to empirically define, let alone measure, to construct a hypothesis that is, in final analysis, simply empty rhetoric.

Finally, throughout this article, they keep on talking about men’s “collective identity” but at no time define what they think that should necessarily be. For folks who are creating a feminist straw man against which to argue, they ironically adopt as their basic presupposition the worst aspects of radical feminist bullshit: to wit, that there’s some specific male or female identity we must adhere to. But give the radfems credit where it is due: they at least DEFINE that identity. These guys just seem to say “that identity will be whatever feminism isn’t” — ignoring the very empirically observable fact that feminism isn’t any one thing in particular.

[–]Sininenn 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Sailbad_the_Sinner30 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, no. You asked a question about what the article means by "masculine identity" and I pointed you to the answers in the text itself, even citing a passage for you.

You then started to talk about "a list of the article's problems", implying I ever asked for that. I didn't.

I tried to explain what the essay means by the terms you seemed to be unclear about. So let me make this clear:

The author never claimed it had an answer to what a uniquely masculinite identity in today's age is - as that is exactly the argument it is making - that today, there exists no societal role that is unique to men, in which they would be able to make a unique and valued contribution. Such identity, as the essay claims, used to be tied to protection and combat, among others, but even that is a vestige. All the others previously unique masculinite identities have been eradicated, or their value morally degraded - as is for example seen in the demonization of the police force, and the institutions of society which used to uphold its values.

Note that those are the arguments of the essay, not mine, so before you start taking it out on me - I am merely answering your questions.

I am not interested in being told what a man should be by anyone, and this essay was never claiming to do so - as you imply, but thank you very much for the suggestion.

Now, if all you are interested in arguing in bad faith, then I will repeat myself again - I am not having any of that either, thank you and goodbye.