Im splitting this post into two parts. To better explain my overall point.

Part 1: Take "positive masculinity" for example.

I have no interest in the term "positive masculinity". Because I think it's just traditional masculinity with a liberal gaze. It still reinforces the same rigid standards on men. But just in a woke way though.

Most conversations about men doing better just result to people wanting men to take a "happy wife, happy life" approach to life. Again "Positive masculinity" just becomes traditional masculinity with a feminist gaze.

When it comes to men. These some liberal types don't want the deconstruction of male gender roles. They want a reconstruction of gender roles for men instead. But when it comes to women's gender roles, though. It's the opposite.

Women are taught to be individuals who define femininity for themselves, to decenter men. Unlike men, women aren't considered odd for steping out of gender roles, due to years of Feminism process. There is a reason why women aren't seen as odd for wearing jeans, while a man in a dress is still a big deal in big 26. Or bisexuality and experimenting being more accepted in women, than men.

Therefore, making this conversation pointless, because of double standards.

The Conservative types or even the red-pill manosphere types want to put men into a very rigid box.

While the liberal types just want to make that same rigid box only slightly bigger for men, though.

Meanwhile, people like me and you want to get rid of the whole box that puts pressure on men in the first place. And actually go against the satus quo.

Part 2: The fake opposition.

Let me explain this more.

This post is about to get really cringe. Because I'm about to use a WWE analogy here.

Some of you guys are probably not Pro Wrestling fans.

There are these 3 Wrestlers. Cody Rhodes, Roman Reigns, and The Rock. You guys probably know who The Rock is. Right? Lol.

In this scenario, We are Cody Rhodes. The Conservatives are Roman Reigns. And the Liberals are The Rock. Stay with me here lol.

A few years ago Cody Rhodes and Roman Reigns was building to a match at Wrestlemania for 2 years. And then The Rock comes out of nowhere. And tells Cody to give up the spot he earn to fight the Champion Roman Reigns. So Cody just walks away. And the Rock goes face to face with Roman after this. Giving the illusion of Roman vs Rock being the real fight, and Cody just being an after thought on the sidelines.

Because Rock vs Roman was the corporate match the WWE wanted at the time. While the fans wanted Cody Rhodes vs Roman though. Due to WWE getting backlash for this terrible decision. They inserted Cody back into the storyline. And Cody finally grows a back bone, and tells the Rock to fuck off. And gets his spot back, to face Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania.

My point with this analogy here. It should be Postgenderism vs Conservatism. Not Conservatism vs half-ass traditionalism (I.E. "positive masculinity") Similar to the Rock and Roman being family members. Conservatives and Liberals can also be family members when it comes to certain issues around gender. So it makes sense why someone would want their opposition to be someone they are already familiar with. Aka control opposition.

In this analogy, we can't let Liberals with pseudo gender values take our spot in the discourse against Conservatism. Again it should be Postgenderism vs Conservatism. Not some water down version of Conservatism taking our sport.

The public debate often centers on traditional masculinity vs. progressive masculinity, leaving postgenderism largely outside the mainstream conversation. In that framing, we see liberals not as the opposite of conservatives, but as offering an alternative version of gender norms instead of rejecting gender roles altogether.

My title is exaggerating. Liberalism is a broad political tradition. Some liberals support concepts like "positive masculinity," while others, including some queer theorists, gender abolitionists, and postgender thinkers, are much closer to my position of minimizing or eliminating gender roles. So it's more accurate to say many mainstream liberal discussions still retain gendered expectations, rather than suggesting all liberals do. But for this post I'm just doing hyperbole though.

So the debate has become Conservatism vs. reformed traditionalism, while the more radical critique, postgenderism, is pushed to the sidelines. Whether people agree depends on whether they see "positive masculinity" as expanding men's choices or simply redefining the same box. That's the central disagreement my post is highlighting here.

The core of my claim is:

Conservatives generally argue that traditional male gender roles should be preserved.

But many liberal/feminist approaches criticize some aspects of traditional masculinity but still expect men to fulfill socially valued roles such as protector, emotionally intelligent partner, good father, ally, or provider.

From my perspective, that is a reconstruction of masculinity rather than its abolition.

Postgenderism, by contrast, would question why men should have a prescribed gender role at all. It would argue that people should be free to define themselves without social expectations tied to being male or female.

In conclusion.

We will go nowhere, if we are not treated as the real opposition. Just like Cody. We need to fight for our earned spot in the discourse.