I don’t even comprehend: How are most males especially straight ones, and transgenders especially trans women.

Kraskter · 2024-08-23T03:04:04+00:00

The concept of double binds I notice are quite prevalent in our culture. If I parsed the meaning of this post correctly.

two examples could be:

A woman told “You should talk less” when she’s talkative will often be underestimated for talking less.

A man told “You should express your feelings more” will often be shunned as weak, trauma dumping, or all manner of things for doing so.

Sky-kunn · 2024-08-23T05:11:30+00:00

I think a lot of people, myself included, have gone through a similar evolution in their thinking about feminism. We started out genuinely wanting to support gender equality, believing in the idea of equal rights and opportunities for all genders. But somewhere along the way, we became disillusioned.

Maybe it was the constant negativity towards men, the generalizations that painted them all as oppressors, or the dismissive attitude towards men's issues. Perhaps it was the feeling that, within these "feminist" spaces, men were often seen as the enemy, their struggles minimized or ignored. And then when you call out these generalizations, they get defensive and start labeling you as someone who doesn't understand them, just because you disagree with their narrow-minded view of an entire gender. It's truly ironic to see a whole group, that was meant to fight against this type of belief, engaging in the same stereotyping, basing their views on non-scientific evidence to essentialize an entire gender as one monolithic thing.

It's frustrating, because on paper, feminism is supposed to be about equality for all genders. But in practice, it often feels like the focus is solely on women's issues, with little to no consideration for the unique challenges faced by men. And those feminists who do care about or recognize the need to consider men's rights seem to be either very quiet or believe that women's issues are so much more important that they don't have the energy to address men's concerns as well. I'm not a fan of labeling people who call themselves feminists as misandrists. I think it's an unreasonable way to think, but it's a somewhat common thought in men's rights communities. Unfortunately, I can understand why this way of thinking happens, in the same way, I can somewhat understand why people outside these communities think that those who care about men's issues are misogynistic and believe that the only true victims of society are men. Of course, this isn't true either. If a woman cares about men's issues, she'll be called a "pick-me"; if a man cares about women's issues, he'll be called a "white knight."... and the echo chamber gets stronger...

Honestly, it makes it hard to identify as a feminist at all. I care about human issues related to gender, regardless of who is experiencing them. I want to see a world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, where stereotypes are challenged, and where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. But that's not what modern feminism represents to me.

It's not about taking away from the fight for women's rights; it's about acknowledging that men face challenges too, and those challenges deserve to be addressed with the same level of compassion and understanding. Until that happens, I'll keep searching for a space where true gender equality is the goal, not just equality for some. Sadly, the subreddits that try to keep a balanced point of view and focus on all genders' rights are very small. It's like being an extremist helps you thrive, but when those communities grow too much, radical people take control, and these places become another plague of misandry or misogyny.

And the echo chamber effect just intensifies this problem. People surround themselves with others who share their views, reinforcing their existing beliefs and making it harder to consider alternative perspectives. That's why people need to be careful when handling people from the outside. They are probably trolls who are completely closed off to conversation and want to give a "like" call and get banned. But sometimes they are just people who have misconceptions about the other side of the coin. They may be lost and willing to change their minds if they are received with respect and if people are willing to listen and talk, even if at first they seem aggressive. Always give the benefit of the doubt; everyone deserves it.

AigisxLabrys · 2024-08-23T03:41:48+00:00

I would never willingly be shirtless around people, even family members.

NoDecentNicksLeft · 2024-08-23T18:35:44+00:00

This will be politically incorrect but consistent with my experience evaluated in the light of what knowledge I have (which is not relevant scientific expertise but more like popular science, as I don't hold a degree in a relevant field): it seems to be a disproportionately female problem that when a person has a disappointing experience with the opposite sex, they turn towards their own sex romantically and sexually, and if they have a disappointing experience of life as their own sex, they decide to try to live as the opposite sex. Disappointed in men? Date women. Life didn't work out as a woman? Try to live as a man. This does indeed seem to be less frequent with men. Men shamed in their male identity or role tend to seek different solutions ('proving themselves', 'right of passage', hormonal therapy, gym, very 'male' job, 'female' job, solitude and singleness, suicide), whereas women seem to react more frequently by wanting to 'turn the switch'.

I don't know if there's going to be a valid analogy from this, but whereas an XX male can exist with a proper male reproductive system (testicles present, ovaries absent), an XY with sry not so much — we will instead be dealing with something like a female external end (vagina), but the internal reproductive system will be mostly male (presence of undescended testicles, absence of ovaries, maybe presence of fallopian tubes and uterus). Puberty will obviously be of the male sort. There will thus be more people assigned as female at birth who nonetheless exhibit male patterns other than external sexual organs, who will typically be regarded as women with somewhat of a masculine tendency in personality, unless someone looks at the x-rays. On the other hand, there will be fewer people with external male sexual organs feeling female inside. Perhaps the factors behind this are relevant to transsexuality also (where there's no question of intersexuality).

As for sexual orientation, I think that's too muddy, and I would be inclined to look more at romantic orientation but not something like romanticized friendships (let's just look at the sort of letters our ancestors in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age or even 19th century wrote to their friends) but more like the sex seen as life partner (as if one wanted to marry up and settle down and have kids with a person of that sex). We would need to define these things properly before comparing the relative frequencies of homosexuality between men and women, lest we end up comparing apples and oranges. I don't want to be insensitive, but there's a difference between prison (or mediaeval/ancient army camp) and a man wanting a boyfriend in life outside it, and there's a difference between a woman who likes to fool out with other women for sexual stimulation vs actually wanting to raise children with a female partner. And then there's intersexuality, like a person who has a vagina but also XY chromosome without knowing it deciding they don't like sex with men for a reason they can't tell, presuming it to be orientation. That all is just not precise enough to enable a reliable comparison.

If you also take a look around, there's far more adoption of anything male by women than vice versa, even among people who don't perceive themselves as being in any way or degree a transvestite or transsexual person. For men, it typically stops at brighter or more vivid or less serious colours, some flamboyance, maybe some delicate accents, with rare use of, I don't know, eyeliner/kohl or sequins or brocade, depending on the culture, but for women it goes much farther in terms of clothes, hair styles, even mannerisms and ways of speaking. Sort of like 'graduating' to a male identity, as if it was a vertical hierarchy and not a horizontal difference. So the perception of pertinent issues may be different among women than among men.

As for misandry vs misogyny, it's difficult to avoid apples-to-oranges comparisons, because direct comparisons will often be unavailable and weights for weighted comparisons will be subjective, complicated and controversial. For example how much misogyny exists in male groups and misandry in female groups, vs the degree of social acceptance or self-acceptance of the behaviour (like do people perceive themselves as transgressing when acting in that manner or not). There does seem to be a problem with the acceptance of somewhat extreme levels of misandry among the broad womanosphere and social mainstream. Manosphere can be misogynist, but that's usually called out, whereas womanosphere's misandry is met with acceptance. This will be politically incorrect to say, but I believe women's attitude to criticism — giving and receiving — is relevant here. It could be that women are more sensitive to receiving criticism than men are but also less sensitive to giving it, on average. So like a person who wants full freedom of speech for themselves but wants their own good name or image to be protected by limiting other people's freedom of speech in an asymmetrical way. Many, possibly most, women seem to have this sort of asymmetrical approach to criticism across the gender divide (a one-way-street sort of view). I think that's more nurture than nature but am not sure.

What's more nature than nurture, on the other hand, is the relative rarity of eggs vs abundance of sperms, resulting in eggs being precious and sperms being cheap, flowing over into interpersonal and social relations and men being perceived as abundant and cheap, whereas women rare and precious, where it usually close to a 50/50 or 51/49 distribution in reality. And higher-status persons usually get more liberty to criticize lower-status persons than the other way round. Modern feminism tends to be supremacist and also even draw upon the post-chivalric tradition of women being special and exalted and put on a pedestal (perhaps to compensate for keeping them away from decision-making), resulting in a sort of want-the-best-of-both-worlds approach to equality, augmunted by the biological factor I've just outlined (women rare men abundant despite the opposite sometimes being the case, e.g. after wars, and despite 50/50 usually being the case). And the legal and social countermeasures against previous discrimination and disempowerment have long swung the pendulum to the opposite imbalance. All factors combined, we're seeing some female dominance, not all of which is pretty.

Title	I don’t even comprehend: How are most males especially straight ones, and transgenders especially trans women.
Author	ZealousidealArm160
Upvotes	23
Comments	19
Date	August 23, 2024 12:12 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/EverydayMisandry
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/everydaymisandry/comments/1eyytar/i_dont_even_comprehend_how_are_most_males/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/EverydayMisandry/i-dont-even-comprehend-how-are-most-males.1528073 https://theredarchive.com/post/1528073

Comments