There’s a prevailing notion that women are still widely infantilised, which indeed they were - institutionally - until well into the 20th century in even the most progressive nations as manifest in their inability to vote, open bank accounts, own property, work most jobs, run businesses, divorce and so on, as well as their regard as being too emotionally volatile to maintain any position of responsibility (see the origin of the term hysterectomy), their status as brood bitches for breeding which negated any career ( especially before contraception ) , their relegation as concubines across cultures, their over sexualisation as being all beauty and no brains and men’s play toys - much of which was enshrined via religion, and regrettably still continues in large part in some backwards theocratic corners of the world.

However, whilst such injustice is well recognised and addressed in the west, in modern discourse it’s common for men to remain infantilised and crudely stereotyped as sex-crazed, emotionally illiterate and unexpressive, violently impulsive, and lacking empathy and tact. (Which might be partially explained by our tendency to mistakenly assume moral superiority on behalf of the oppressed party but that’s another story).

My experience is that (in the 21st century west) women often get away with casually passing really quite condescending and damaging remarks about men collectively, which, if reciprocated would lead to accusations of misogyny and chauvinism… and see their head roll down the street. Even the self proclaimed open minded woke warriors I know will not utter an Ill word of women but will spit out all sorts of crass and in many cases straight up fallacious (or phallacious) statements about men only thinking with the head between their legs and being the sole perpetrators of violence and so on - often also as comedy.

Having studied psychology, I couldn’t help but notice the air of patronisation when dealing with men’s mental health issues, which may ultimately be positively intentioned but which seems to typecast men as impassive brutes who lack channels of open communication even among friends, who bottle up problems by default, and may only open up emotionally when they have a beer or a ball in their hand and even then it will be limited to some brief elliptical statements - hence the rise of men’s mental health groups centred around woodwork or football and typical bloky pastimes.

Also the notion that almost all men are absolutely starved for affection and complements seems hyperbolic, and contributes to the humiliating archetype of a prototypical man as a tender little lamb posing as a fearless lion, with the emotional expressiveness of an ogre, unable to restrain his lust, and - perhaps unintentionally - destroying everything around him like a bull in a China shop. Admittedly I do actually know a few cavemen who more or less fit this description, but they’re a minority. It’s possible I’m barking up the wrong tree and the average man really is closer to some emotionally suppressed ape, but to me it seems ridiculous and inaccurate and it’s an anachronistic mode of thinking which still seems run unchallenged at least in my experience.

It’s also not particularly uncommon for this all to be taken a step further, as it’s determined that any faults, flaws, foibles, as well as any spite, malice, hostility, physical and psychological abuse, deception and so on toward men or even between women is merely a product of internalised misogyny and oppression, and that women therefore aren’t to be held to the same standard of accountability that is demanded of men. This is a vile form of scapegoating that needs to be confronted head on whenever it appears.

Anyhow it just seems to me that whilst the broadly accepted view of women has altered to become far more empowering and affirmative to capture the fact that they’re independent minded and perfectly capable leaders and any allusions to hysteria or weak mindedness are long gone, societies view of men has - if anything - become more infantilising and even to some degree anathematising.

What’s your take ?