TIL why autistic men have it so much harder indeed, while reading "The assertive woman" by Bloom/Coburn/Pearlman from 1975. Non-assertive men are interpreted in a very malicious way, further encouraging aggressive and dominant behaviours while activly punishing sensible characters.

1m0ws · 2026-03-13T12:26:23+00:00

PreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewI had this on my readlist as i hoped to get...

[–]DetailFriendly3060left-wing male advocate 82 points83 points84 points 5 months ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 11 points12 points13 points 5 months ago (65 children) | Copy Link

I’m not sure the history supports the idea that femininity was always “celebrated”. For most of history traditional femininity was expected rather than praised because it was simply the social role assigned to women.

Interestingly public appreciation for traits associated with femininity (care, nurturing, domestic care) became more visible only after women started entering traditionally male roles like the workforce and leadership. Once gender roles became less fixed, people started explicitly debating and valuing those traits rather than just assuming them.

And sure women can be praised for traits associated with femininity, while men are often mocked for the same traits. But praise doesn’t necessarily mean those traits are actually high-status. Historically qualities like nurturing or domestic work were often described as “beautiful” or “virtuous” indeed. Yet they were also unpaid, expected and carried less authority than roles associated with masculinity. So women could be appreciated for embodying them, but those traits themselves still tended to rank lower in terms of power and social status. When men display them the reaction can be ridicule because they are seen as stepping down the status hierarchy. So it can look like femininity is valued when women show it, but the underlying hierarchy of traits may still be part of what produces the double standard. That’s what the feminist argument about “femininity” means.

My empathy goes to neurodivergent men. Mainstream norms are very ableist and this doesn’t get acknowledged enough. I also think neurodivergence interacts with gender norms in different ways. Neurodivergent girls are often socialized very early to be agreeable, polite and accommodating, so many learn to “mask” their differences to fit expectations. That can lead to different struggles later on, such as late diagnosis or a lot of internal confusion about why things feel harder than they appear for others. Neurodivergent boys on the other hand are often not pushed to mask in the same way. Because of that they may stand out more when they don’t conform to social expectations around assertiveness, confidence or reading social cues and they can receive more direct disapproval or negative reactions. So both groups struggle, but the way it shows up and how society responds to it is different. So I agree neurodivergent men specifically often end up carrying a lot of the social backlash for not fitting NT norms.

Personally I actually appreciate non-assertive men a lot. I also think men are just as capable of being nurturing, gentle and emotionally supportive as women. It’s a shame that social expectations sometimes discourage men from expressing those sides of themselves, because those qualities are valuable in anyone.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 30 points31 points32 points 5 months ago* (47 children) | Copy Link

Yet they were also unpaid, expected and carried less authority than roles associated with masculinity.

What kind of authority did an engineer have in an election? A party? I'm not sure what you even mean by authority. And I picked the high tier male-associated role. If I went with cleaning technician, or handyman, it would be more average.

tended to rank lower in terms of power and social status

Women didn't need to have high social status to earn the right to mate. It was at best a bonus. Most often blue blood, or wealth.

When men display them the reaction can be ridicule because they are seen as stepping down the status hierarchy.

No, its seen as stepping outside. Outside is 'out-of-world', its not 'below'. Men who do feminine stuff don't become feminine, they become unmasculine, unworthy of any praise, deserters of the male role, cowards and whatever other epithets may be given to someone unable or unwilling to fill the male role, despite having a penis given at birth by the Authority.

Before women were liberated from the female role, a woman stepping outside her role (getting a child out of wedlock, prostitution, or more violent crimes - not that I agree the others are crimes) was also shunned as 'out of world', not 'elevated to manhood', but cast out as a bad apple.

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago (46 children) | Copy Link

I meant social and economic authority attached to roles. Work associated with masculinity tended to come with wages, institutional recognition and decision-making power in organizations (guilds, trade unions, labor organizations, churches…). Domestic and caregiving work was often unpaid and structurally dependent on the income and status of the male role. So even if individual male jobs varied widely in prestige, the sphere of paid public work generally carried more institutional power than the domestic sphere.

I’m not claiming most men had easy upward mobility. The point is simply that men were at least positioned within that public sphere, where some degree of independence or mobility was possible, whereas women’s economic position was often structurally tied to a husband or father when their work remained unpaid domestic labor.

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 15 points16 points17 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 14 points15 points16 points 5 months ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 13 points14 points15 points 5 months ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]thithothith 14 points15 points16 points 5 months ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago (15 children) | Copy Link

men had access through the workforce and we're dependent on their employer and had to build skills. they had (and have) less access to depending on their partner.

what's the extra layer?

Women were also dependent on the employer, through their husbands. So they’re dependent on the husband & the employer. That’s the extra layer.

When a husband gets fired by the employer, it affects both husband and wife. When a husband gets a mental disorder or gets ill and can’t work or he steals and involves himself in criminal activities… it affects both husband and wife.

The wife is affected in more possible ways because she doesn’t only depend on the work force but also on her husband. It’s an extra layer? Whereas if you just depended on yourself, you’re only directly dependent on the work force.

they had (and have) less access to depending on their partner.

I’m not sure why one would want this form of dependence? It’s not a privilege, it’s dependence?

Like sure a slave that is treated well by the slave owners and gets all the food and means they need also isn’t directly suffering, but when given the option, they’ll also choose to be free instead of doing unpaid domestic labour? And work for themselves and earn their own money? Even when that means less means and more economic struggle? Don’t you value freedom and autonomy?

[–]thithothith4 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women were also dependent on the employer, through their husbands. So they’re dependent on the husband & the employer. That’s the extra layer.

this seems like needless redundancy to make a case for a double dependency that is captured perfectly well by a single dependency.

if a child depends on their fathers income, and the father works for company z, it's perfectly sufficient to say "the child is dependent on the father's labor" and not "the child is a dependent on both the father and a dependent on company z"

I’m not sure why one would want this form of dependence? It’s not a privilege, it’s dependence?

Like sure a slave that is treated well by the slave owners and gets all the food and means they need also isn’t directly suffering, but when given the option, they’ll also choose to be free instead of doing unpaid domestic labour? And work for themselves and earn their own money? Even when that means less means and more economic struggle? Don’t you value freedom and autonomy?

I could make the same case about valuing one's safety and security and having to work to live. if a man doesn't fulfill his traditional role, vs a woman, she would have better chances on being dependent on her father, as opposed to the guy, who will be more at risk of being straight up homeless.

[–]NoBlacksmith81373 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

this seems like needless redundancy to make a case for a double dependency that is captured perfectly well by a single dependency.

What I meant isn’t that there are literally 2 separate dependencies. The difference is about how directly someone is positioned in the economic system. A working man might still be dependent on an employer and class constraints, but he is at least directly participating in the labor market and receiving wages himself. A woman whose economic position is mediated through a husband isn’t directly positioned in that system in the same way. Her access to resources is indirect and tied to the relationship rather than to her own role in the labor structure.

I could make the same case about valuing one's safety and security and having to work to live. if a man doesn't fulfill his traditional role, vs a woman, she would have better chances on being dependent on her father, as opposed to the guy, who will be more at risk of being straight up homeless.

You’re absolutely right that men historically faced serious risks too since loss of work could mean poverty or homelessness. I’m not claiming men had it easy. The point is just that the mechanism of dependence operated differently.

[–]thithothith4 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree that people can value different things in life. Some might prioritize economic security within a stable household, others might value independence more, from an individual PoV. My point wasn’t that one role automatically produced a better life in every single case. What I was pointing to is that many people generally prefer having direct control over their own economic position, rather than having it mediated through a relationship.

Even if both paths involve constraints, access through one’s own work tends to offer more personal autonomy, which is why modern societies eventually gradually did move toward giving both men and women more direct access to education, professions and property rights. Right?

You all here have egalitarianism as a core principle. So I’d assume that would also mean preferring a society where both men and women have equal access to the workforce and neither sex is structurally dependent on the other for economic security.

So when you say:

they're both so different that I think preference applies more than anything.

… I already assumed the preference here would be gender equality (meaning both men and women operate under roughly the same economic structure) rather than one sex being primarily tied to the labor market and the other primarily to marriage.

[–]thithothith5 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I was pointing to is that many people generally prefer having direct control over their own economic position, rather than having it mediated through a relationship.

I can't speak for most people, but as a stay at home partner myself (granted, with lesser roles as we don't have kids), I can at least say that many people would like to not directly participate in the stresses of being in the workforce. i very much doubt my opinion would change if I had more at home responsibilities.

You all here have egalitarianism as a core principle. So I’d assume that would also mean preferring a society where both men and women have equal access to the workforce and neither sex is structurally dependent on the other for economic security.

that, and giving men more equal access to women's traditional gender role. men should get to spend as much time with their kids, be should not be expected to share wealth any more than women do, should not be evaluated as potential partners based their wealth any more than women, etc. I see very little being done on those fronts.

… I already assumed the preference here would be gender equality (meaning both men and women operate under roughly the same economic structure) rather than one sex being primarily tied to the labor market and the other primarily to marriage.

yup. the complaint is that men still have their role, and their expectations. I feel like most feminists assume that the female gender role is so objectively bad and no one would want it that equality just means getting everyone the male gender role and the male gender role only. fine, if that's the case, then discourage more women for preferring wealthy partners, and not dividing their income, etc. it's all very inconsistent. we don't see that happening either.

ideally men and women would both be somewhere in the middle, but that requires making women adopt a bit more of what the responsibilities of male gender role, and giving men more access to the female gender role.

[–]NoBlacksmith81373 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't speak for most people, but as a stay at home partner myself (granted, with lesser roles as we don't have kids), I can at least say that many people would like to not directly participate in the stresses of being in the workforce. i very much doubt my opinion would change if I had more at home responsibilities.

I agree that having a stay-at-home partner can be appealing for either gender, especially if the economic system actually makes that viable. And ideally people should be free to choose whichever arrangement fits their life. The distinction I was making earlier is more about structure versus choice. When both men and women have direct access to education, work and economic independence, staying home becomes a genuine personal choice rather than the role structurally assigned to one gender. You get what I mean?

And yes the broader economic system matters a lot here too. Many people today feel forced into a dual-income model simply to maintain a basic standard of living, which is a separate issue from gender roles themselves.

that, and giving men more equal access to women's traditional gender role. men should get to spend as much time with their kids, be should not be expected to share wealth any more than women do, should not be evaluated as potential partners based their wealth any more than women, etc. I see very little being done on those fronts.

Agreed

yup. the complaint is that men still have their role, and their expectations. I feel like most feminists assume that the female gender role is so objectively bad and no one would want it that equality just means getting everyone the male gender role and the male gender role only.

I don’t think equality means giving everyone the male role. It means neither role is tied to gender anymore. That’s what “breaking down the patriarchy” means.

It’s not that the female role is bad. The issue is that it historically wasn’t a free choice, and neither was the male role. Women were expected to be caregivers and men to be providers. That rigid assignment of roles is essentially what people refer to when they talk about patriarchy. That doesn’t automatically mean every aspect of the male role was easier or preferable because both gender roles involved constraints. Historically feminist movements tended to emphasize the costs imposed on women, because their political aim was to challenge restrictions placed on women’s rights and opportunities.

then discourage more women for preferring wealthy partners, and not dividing their income, etc. it's all very inconsistent. we don't see that happening either.

I discourage rigid gender roles overall. Neither am I encouraging a rigid non-binary model where everyone is a clone. I am for a society where people can freely choose aspects of roles.

ideally men and women would both be somewhere in the middle, but that requires making women adopt a bit more of what the responsibilities of male gender role, and giving men more access to the female gender role.

Agreed

[–]thithothith3 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That rigid assignment of roles is essentially what people refer to when they talk about patriarchy.

I don't think you're in the movement you think you're in. if I criticize the male gender role, I can expect to get as much hate from feminists as I do from tradcons. you might be sheltered from how vitriolic their opinions are when it comes to male grievances, if that's not a subject that directly affects you or you don't talk about it much, but the term patriarchy is not used to refer to rigid roles by the majority of feminists. it's not used to refer to proportional but different restrictions and oppression imposed on the sexes. it's used as a bludgeon to belittle men's issues, disproportionately allocate resources to only women, define sexism as only misogyny, and frame men as a whole as a privileged class so that their gender roles and expectations are never properly challenged.

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think you're in the movement you think you're in.

I’m not a “movement” person. I don’t protest, I don’t go to rallies, I don’t get together. I call myself a feminist because my values and ideas align with some very important feminist authors. Especially in their analysis of patriarchy. Their system level thinking and structural analysis aligns with me.

if I criticize the male gender role, I can expect to get as much hate from feminists as I do from tradcons.

Nowadays the label “feminist” is kinda worthless, everyone uses it without being literate on structural analysis. But sure I believe you. And I’ll defend you if I see them hating you for making a valid point about gender roles. I’m not loyal to other feminists, I’m loyal to feminist core values and patriarchy analysis. Women can also reinforce patriarchy. Feminists can also reinforce patriarchy. I see it happen online.

you might be sheltered from how vitriolic their opinions are when it comes to male grievances, if that's not a subject that directly affects you or you don't talk about it much

It affects me as it affects my male partners. One of them is a lwma. I’m not blind to their pain.

but the term patriarchy is not used to refer to equally harmful rigid roles for both sexes by the majority of feminists.

I agree not by the majority. But it is in the most original frameworks, the major frameworks, in feministic anthropology. Must I throw valuable descriptive analysis away because most people aren’t capable of system level thinking and misinterpret it and misuse it? It has a lot of value to me. I’m aware feminism is a chaotic bundle of different interpretations. That makes it hard to criticise feminism, because each feminist can say (just like I did) “that’s not my branch of feminism, that’s not my interpretation”. But the upside is that we’re all in active conversation. I fear ideologies more when they are all aligned. Internal disagreement is good.

it's not used to refer to proportional but different restrictions and oppression imposed on the sexes. it's used as a bludgeon to belittle men's issues, disproportionately allocate resources to only women, define sexism as only misogyny, and frame men as a whole as a privileged class so that their gender roles and expectations are never properly challenged.

I can see how some feminists do that yes. Not all. It’s not inherent to feminism.

see how fast you get banned, or told that it's all men's fault and other reductions to ensure men mustn't be seen as systemic victims in the ways they allow for women, for simply acknowledging blatant men's issues alongside women's

I criticise it when I see it.

[–]SchalaZeal013 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnabsolvedGuilt2 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree w a lot of your stated positions, but I love how you defended yourself here because I think you align much closer with the average person than what is portaged online. I’m certain most people who think themselves feminists are not really engaging with the collective as much as they are just using a label that they think conforms to philosophy they’re familiar with

That opens up a whole separate can of worms abt the nature of belief and to what degree someone like you even ought to align with a label on a meta level before even engaging with the content of your beliefs, bc (in online discourse) ppl will talk past each other all the time by attempting to engage with the collective they assume you represent- rather than engaging with you directly bc to be fair, would they be wrong to project those assumptions onto you when you use the label?

Just food for thought. I personally abhor feminism and agree w the other reply that if the analysis you align with includes their definition of patriarchy, then it is inherently flawed to begin with, BUT if on the outset of a convo you led with a statement like this to declare your intent- I think I would (if acting in good faith) be forced to mentally dismiss that assumption to take your words at more face value

[–]NoBlacksmith81370 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That opens up a whole separate can of worms abt the nature of belief and to what degree someone like you even ought to align with a label on a meta level before even engaging with the content of your beliefs, bc (in online discourse) ppl will talk past each other all the time by attempting to engage with the collective they assume you represent- rather than engaging with you directly bc to be fair, would they be wrong to project those assumptions onto you when you use the label?

I could reject the label. I could stop calling myself a feminist. But the mere idea breaks my heart. I can’t.

I borrow my deepest insights about the workings of gender roles, the nature of sexism and gendered harm from great feminist thinkers. I’m not going to stab that in the back.

Feminist analysis isn’t flawed. The issue is misapplication. Just like Muslim values aren’t flawed because ISIS commits horrors in their name. Just like Darwin’s contributions to science aren’t flawed because Hitler distorted evolutionary theory and misused it.

Any framework (whether biological, sociological, anthropological, economic…) can be misinterpreted, fundamentally misunderstood, and misapplied. No system is immune to that. The same goes for values like equality, love or justice. Rigid people apply anything rigidly.

I’m not going to throw away good analysis, science or frameworks just because some people misuse them or inject rigid, binary, moralising views into them.

It’s a human tendency to seek certainty. To trust the familiar. To empathise more easily with what feels close to us. Those biases will always exist. The work is to keep challenging them: continuously.

So no, I’m not letting myself get pushed out of feminism. Not by people who misuse it, and not by people who reject it. Especially not when I know I understand the framework on a deeper level.

Btw I appreciate your comment a lot. I know my tone tends to come off strong (just like bell hooks lol), but that is just the passion speaking.

[–]UnabsolvedGuilt1 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How do you guys quote things w indentation like that? Can I do it on mobile?

Will just refer to your paragraphs by numbers instead of quoting cause a lot of work to copy and paste, so thank you for spacing them out like that

1&2 - I mean I don’t have anything uniquely against feminism that I would apply to every framework bc I think the type of ideological possession it seems you’re expressing (for lack of better word, not sure how else to articulate that thought) is a dangerous way of thinking that leads to backwards post hoc rationalising contradictions in your belief system

3 - “Feminist analysis isn’t flawed” is an example of what I said previously, that is an overly broad and firm stance that comes off as ideological possession more than honest or critical thought. Any and every framework can and is be flawed, if a system has internal contradictions, it creates dissonance that encourages dishonesty rather than attempting to resolve said contradictions. It’s a problematic way of thinking if you want to think goal or solution oriented, don’t you think?

Even as a response to what I said, I would not even broadly say feminist analysis is flawed (cause that would be dishonest), I was just trying to say I think their definition of patriarchy specifically is flawed. I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water as a result of that, I do favour some feminist concepts like intersectionality, just didn’t bring that up bc it was not relevant to the point I was trying to make

4&5 - yeah that’s fine, but relating to what I was saying before, it’s important to not mistake the person espousing a belief for the belief. Since I’ve read and understand your thoughts, I ought to just make sure I’m contending with NoBlacksmith8137 and how you express your beliefs rather than the more common online behaviour of treating you as a proxy for feminism or whatever label you use. No one needs to throw away anything regarding their frameworks for evaluating the world in response to new info bc many of our ideas predate us as individuals; I was more so focusing on the nature of categories and how viewing people as collective instead of individual makes it easier to not engage with their claims, by equivocating and moving between referring to either the collective or the individual when it suits the argument—which is not a fair or honest thing to do, and I care about truth seeking and intellectual rigour above all else

6 - Tru(th nuk)e

7 - Was not trying to convince you to drop the label but I can see how you might assume that from the part you quoted. I think I clarified it well so I won’t repeat on that, but also reiterating the other side of that claim was that I think it’s natural to use your experiences and pattern recognitions to form biases that end up as assumptions in a conversation with strangers. Not saying they are right or wrong for that bf sometimes you will be right and sometimes you will be wrong when using your experiences to assume what is unstated by interlocutors.

Was not trying to say or insinuate that they were right or even necessarily justified in assuming your beliefs, just that it’s something to keep in mind w labels that are not the most useful way of forming a theory of mind abt others. Like I’m certain there are a LOT of assumptions ppl would make abt me in a convo like the one you had if they knew I was a young black male, so I would like to hope I’m mindful enough to callout unstated assumptions abt my identity that may not align with my beliefs

8 - No problem! I get why you would need to be a bit defensive as a response to the part of my reply you quoted about being fair- I probably should’ve over clarified that to not be misinterpreted as me justifying or agreeing w those things. I do mean fair just as in intellectually understandable, not the morally loaded type of fairness

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How do you guys quote things w indentation like that? Can I do it on mobile?

Copy paste and add > in front

I think the type of ideological possession it seems you’re expressing … is a dangerous way of thinking that leads to backwards post hoc rationalising contradictions in your belief system

I totally agree that being certain is potentially dangerous. I get attached to frameworks once I have become more convinced of them, I’m human… but I do have a pretty flexible mind. The idea that I might be wrong is always a possibility that exists in the back of my mind, and I see that as intellectual hygiene. Contradictions shouldn’t be rationalised, they should be examined.

“Feminist analysis isn’t flawed” is an example of what I said previously, that is an overly broad and firm stance that comes off as ideological possession more than honest or critical thought.

I understand why you say that. I don’t really know what else to say because I get that you see it that way, that’s a valid remark imo.

Any and every framework can and is be flawed

I agree. Because a framework is trying to conceptualise reality right? So it will never be more than just a concept, it’s always an approach. But some concepts are more accurate at describing reality than others. Some just have more descriptive power.

if a system has internal contradictions, it creates dissonance that encourages dishonesty rather than attempting to resolve said contradictions. It’s a problematic way of thinking if you want to think goal or solution oriented, don’t you think?

Absolute statements reduce critical thinking. The unwillingness to review and refine when stumbled upon contradictions is problematic yes. I think this happens when people experience stress or fear. This mechanism happens both in those who call themselves feminists and those who label themselves as anti-feminist. As the fear to be moralised also creates this attitude.

Even as a response to what I said, I would not even broadly say feminist analysis is flawed (cause that would be dishonest), I was just trying to say I think their definition of patriarchy specifically is flawed.

I think it is misunderstood. If you read bell hooks and actually focus on what she’s saying… it’s something entirely different than what most feminist slogans are saying. I think if bell hooks labeled herself “anti-feminist” and just gave patriarchy a different name, she would be seen as THE hero on this subreddit. But here is your “label theory”: she’s demonised here instead.

I don’t think the message is to abandon labels? I think the message is to fight prejudice. Feminist is a label. Men is a label. Black is a label. Incel is a label. Neurodivergent is a label… Labels are always gonna exist. We have words for groups of people? The problem isn’t labels? The problem is prejudice against people of a certain label.

That’s why my attitude is: stick all labels onto me. Also the ones with the negative connotation. I’ll wear them proudly.

I started calling myself a feminist more after it was used as an insult against me in high school because I was an intellectual girl and the guys in my class sort of bullied me for that. I had never spoken about feminism, women’s rights… I had merely spoken in class about “existentialism” when a teacher tried to talk about philosophy and I was the only one who knew Sartre and Camus. Being called “feminist” as a slur… made me want to be a feminist. It’s like slut-shaming or the N-word. When people call you derogatory labels, you feel more empowered just inhabiting those labels. That’s how you take the power back when people shame you. And ofcourse a guy in my class a day later asked me if had given the teacher a blow job to get my good grades. Intellectual women have been shamed throughout history. Burned as witches. Men are also not always witnessing this sort of shaming women like me experience from other men, just like how I was blind to misandry before my partner drew my attention to it.

It’s important to not mistake the person espousing a belief for the belief.

I think this should be a basic attitude, right? It’s basically don’t be prejudiced, right? Be open minded.

I was more so focusing on the nature of categories and how viewing people as collective instead of individual makes it easier to not engage with their claims, by equivocating and moving between referring to either the collective or the individual when it suits the argument—which is not a fair or honest thing to do

Well I think you have insight in how all the -isms work. Sexism, racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia…

That’s just that. People who stop seeing individuals, but only the collective they personally have negative experiences with or attach negative beliefs towards.

and I care about truth seeking and intellectual rigour above all else

I believe you. I can tell you and I have a similar way of thinking.

it’s something to keep in mind w labels that are not the most useful way of forming a theory of mind abt others.

Labels lead people to construct a simplified version of you in their head, instead of actually listening to you. That’s why I use them on myself still. It’s a good challenge. Someone who is rejecting prejudice and the -isms will surely find a way to hear me out and see me as a person. And those who don’t… and complain about the other side being prejudiced and thus hurting them… are a little hypocritical. But still very human.

[–]UnabsolvedGuilt1 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1m0ws[S] 8 points9 points10 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Important_Gap86123 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ditzy_Male1 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExternalGreen6826feminist guest -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Important_Gap8612 7 points8 points9 points 5 months ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Important_Gap8612 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Important_Gap86122 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes survival pressures shaped a lot of those roles. In pre-industrial societies everyone worked and both men and women faced serious risks. Men often through dangerous physical labor and women through things like childbirth. I’m not claiming one side “profited” more in some simple sense was I?

The point I was making is about how roles were structured. Even when women worked (farms, markets, households), their economic and legal position was often tied to the household and mediated through the husband or father, whereas men were typically positioned as the formal economic representatives of the household in institutions, contracts, guilds...

Those historical structures are part of why traits like assertiveness became culturally associated with masculinity and traits like agreeableness with femininity. I’m just pointing to that historical pathway to explain why those expectations still exist today.

[–]Important_Gap86122 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Important_Gap86121 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Different factors from different country's I mean that women can get pregnant and that they are weaker during this time has something to do with it also that men are a bit stronger then women thats also why men where the ones who usually went to war and had to work also in the industry age and that transacted into modern times and this then got used from feminist to paint a oppressor oppressed world frame. But then again im no historian i like history but there are so many different nations cultures etc etc that you would need to consider that i dont think there is an easy answer for it and then again we would need to know how happy where the people with the system at that time what a women 400 years ago found amazing living you could find worse then hell self fulfillment wasn't that important when a sickness was able to kill 1/3 of Europe.

So i asked did you study a certain country from this century back till lets say 500 years ago(unbiased) or not otherwise we both just talk about things we dont understand enough to give such an answer we can talk about the 20 century because there we can actually follow it back till now but otherwise i would need to study history for a few years.

[–]NoBlacksmith81370 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Different factors from different country's I mean that women can get pregnant and that they are weaker during this time has something to do with it also that men are a bit stronger then women thats also why men where the ones who usually went to war and had to work also in the industry age and that transacted into modern times

So you make a biological claim. We can’t really change biology. So what do you propose? Does it follow then that these gendered expectations will forever exist since we can’t change biology?

and this then got used from feminist to paint a oppressor oppressed world frame.

That’s not a framework invented by feminists, but sure some feminist branches adopted it. It’s originally a Marxist framework.

there are so many different nations cultures etc etc that you would need to consider that i dont think there is an easy answer for it

But in all these nations and cultures across the globe we see the same gender roles right?

and then again we would need to know how happy where the people with the system at that time what a women 400 years ago found amazing living you could find worse then hell self fulfillment

I don’t think it matters how happy people were when they couldn’t even imagine another society was possible. Like sure they were happy to wash themselves in a creek, does that mean we need to abolish showers?

wasn't that important when a sickness was able to kill 1/3 of Europe.

As a female doctor I would say it would have helped if women were allowed to study medicine as well. More doctors.

So i asked did you study a certain country from this century back till lets say 500 years ago(unbiased) or not otherwise we both just talk about things we dont understand enough to give such an answer we can talk about the 20 century because there we can actually follow it back till now but otherwise i would need to study history for a few years.

This isn’t possible. You can’t study gender roles over a snapshot in time. They mostly came into existence after the agrarian revolution. There are signs that hunter-gatherers had less rigid gender roles and both men and women were involved in hunting and gathering (unless the woman was breastfeeding or pregnant, this is indeed a biological factor that predates the agrarian revolution).

So I’m not sure why we would take a snapshot in time, what is the value of it? I’m not making a claim of “who has it worse, when and where”, I’m merely explaining why gender roles look the way they look through an anthropological and historical perspective.

[–]Important_Gap86121 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You asked why do i think gender norms exist i answered i didnt say that it has to stay the way so stop putting words in my mouth
yes it was created by feminist i mean the men oppressor women oppressed i thought that was clear in this context but apparently not
Look at point 1 and also not entirely asia, africa and nordic countrys all have somewhat different cultures then we do that we all have adopted similar rolles maybe because of the internet and globalization and colonization
Yes but then whats your point? And also thats a strawmen my point is just that i dislike comparing 400 years ago with modern times and you try to make me look like some guy who thinks the old time where better
Which country again? and most people couldnt study anything maybe if its a good time it where 5% of the population who could be a scholar around 15% of the population could maybe read and then i would need prove that women werent allowed to study
lets just stop right here its boring as hell you claim you look it very neutral and scientific when you dont do it and i dont have the energy for that because its boring so you won this reddit argument congratulations

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

⁠You asked why do i think gender norms exist i answered i didnt say that it has to stay the way so stop putting words in my mouth

I didn’t say that? I’m confused. I asked if you thought that followed from a biology claim?

⁠yes it was created by feminist i mean the men oppressor women oppressed i thought that was clear in this context but apparently not

It was created by Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that analyzes social dynamics through a binary of power. Paulo Freire is not a feminist, he’s a Marxist philosopher.

Some feminist branches adopted the framework, some branches don’t use it.

⁠Look at point 1 and also not entirely asia, africa and nordic countrys all have somewhat different cultures then we do that we all have adopted similar rolles maybe because of the internet and globalization and colonization

Gender roles predate internet, globalisation and colonisation

⁠Yes but then whats your point? And also thats a strawmen my point is just that i dislike comparing 400 years ago with modern times and you try to make me look like some guy who thinks the old time where better

I do not make you look like that? You’re the one attacking me for applying a historical perspective to explain how gender roles came into existence and kept on being reinforced throughout history.

⁠Which country again? and most people couldnt study anything maybe if its a good time it where 5% of the population who could be a scholar around 15% of the population could maybe read and then i would need prove that women werent allowed to study

I mean up until like a century ago almost no woman around the globe as capable to enter universities and study science/mathematics/medicine/philosophy/history…

⁠lets just stop right here its boring as hell you claim you look it very neutral and scientific when you dont do it and i dont have the energy for that because its boring so you won this reddit argument congratulations

Why is it boring? Because I’m not an argumentative feminist who’s interested in a cats-vs-dogs fight between men and women?

[–]Important_Gap86121 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

yes because men and women are the same around the world but there are still differences between country's
Maybe i read to much malicious intend ind everything but for me personally it read like you augured that women where worse of then men if not then dont answer to this part
i mean there where women in university's in the 1700th but fair enough i think that this also comes because of gender rolls and not because of malicious intendeds
no because then i wouldn't have engaged. i just find it boring because i want to talk recent things that are happening or that is actively forming the way we live right now because there i can look up stuff can find study's and surveys and can actually still talk with people.

honestly i think its my fault i rather talk about things past ww2 because i have knowledge about those things and its the things that is the most important for our society. You want to talk about all history which i dislike because of points i already mentioned and im also not qualified for that. I would need to study history to actually talk about the history effects why what happend and why people did what they did but as i said already i find it unhelpful for talk about modern political climates

[–]NoBlacksmith81371 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I appreciate your response.

i mean there where women in university's in the 1700th but fair enough i think that this also comes because of gender rolls and not because of malicious intendeds

Yes. I wasn’t talking about malicious intentions before was I? I was explaining how I think gender roles are being reinforced.

because i want to talk recent things that are happening or that is actively forming the way we live right now

I think it’s impossible to understand the present if you don’t understand how we got here. My first history teacher taught me:

“We study the past today in order to better understand the present, and thereby gain a clearer view of the future.”

So in my opinion it’s impossible to discuss gender dynamics today if you don’t place them in historical context. It’s like trying to understand the current geopolitics without knowing about the Cold War, WW2, middle Easter conflicts, colonial history… Do you understand what I’m saying?

To understand feministic patriarchy analysis, you need to see it as a descriptive analysis too, aiming to explain WHY gender roles look the way they do.

I’m not interested in discussing “who has it worse, men or women”. I’m interested in understanding our society on a systemic level and understanding why gendered harms are happening and present the way they present.

[–]Important_Gap86121 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LeftWingMaleAdvocates-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetailFriendly3060left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I am sorry but unfortunately I completely reject your feminist view. I am not doing this out of spite but because I know that as a man nobody will gift me anything and I need to push as hard as possible to be successful. Feminists interpet this as patriarchy but it is because society is gynocentric and it denies many men to freely live masculinity. Feminism makes the mistake of thinking that 'maleness' is valued than what is valued is ingenuity, creativity and intelligence. Men simply are better at achieving these things than women which is why the nuclear family was created so that women use their gifts to nurture children and men prepare them for the real world. Domestic labour doesn't need to be paid, and women don't need high status. When they are married to a high status man they will get this automatically which is why women should be picky but they also need to be humble. I also reject your view of neurodivergent men which are primarily hated by women and not by men. I don't see society as ableist, I mainly see women as ableist towards men because they don't think that useless men have value.

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 16 points17 points18 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]DetailFriendly3060left-wing male advocate -9 points-8 points-7 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LunarLumos 8 points9 points10 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftWingMaleAdvocates-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 6 points7 points8 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am sorry but unfortunately I completely reject your feminist view.

Fair enough agree to disagree

Men simply are better at achieving these things than women which is why the nuclear family was created so that women use their gifts to nurture children and men prepare them for the real world. Domestic labout doesn't need to be paid, and women don't need high status. When they are married to a high status man they will get this automatically which is why women should be picky but they also need to be humble.

I might be misinterpreting but are you arguing for traditionalism? Men having careers and women staying at home doing child care and domestic care? And arguing that women should mostly care about which man they marry?

I mainly see women as ableist towards men because they don't think that useless men have value.

Didn’t you just suggest women should marry men who are successful and therefore not “useless” because: “When they are married to a high status man they will get this automatically which is why women should be picky…”

How is this not you devaluing “useless men”? You’re insisting yourself that women must value men more that are capable of providing more?

I as a woman disagree with that. I don’t want men because they provide, I want an egalitarian relationship where we both provide equally and where we’re both nurturing.

And do you think powerful men value “useless men”? How? By sending them to war as cannon fodder? By using them as cheap labour forces?

[–]DetailFriendly3060 5 months ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not saying anyone needs to be traditional, but personally I would want such a relationship. I studied physics and if I am intelligent, make good money and am a productive member of society then I deserve a woman who is beautiful, humble and good with children.

Women are extremely picky nowadays, so I am not saying that they should only value successful men, they are already doing that. I advocate for them to be less disrespectful of the men who don't make it but I don't tell them who to have a relationship with.

It is also not powerful men not valuing useless men, but they also realize that they are in their position because they have exceptional abilites compared to other people and I also recognize that I am not allowed to complain if I don't push myself. It is also not men who create wars, it is actually evil regimes like russia. You can't tell me that the men dying in the fight against russia are simply cannon fodder, they are heroes who defend freedom.

[–]LeftWingMaleAdvocates-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetailFriendly3060left-wing male advocate -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DetailFriendly3060left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rump_truck 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I fully agree that "praised" and "celebrated" are very different from "rewarded" or "net positive". In fact, they're usually lip service to try to sweeten an obviously bad deal.

As I see it, gender roles lay out three acceptable paths to success:

Be exploited into earning a lot of resources for the wealthy
Be exploited into defending the resources of the wealthy using violence
Produce more people for the wealthy to exploit

Women are the limiting factor on the reproductive path, and men significantly more capable in the violent path thanks to physical strength advantages. Both are similarly capable on the economic path, but women were forced into the reproductive path until feminists won them the ability to choose the economic path.

All of the "$gender is always more valued" rhetoric is missing the point. The values of these three paths change as needed depending on what the wealthy need to maximize the wealth they can gain and hold.

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rump_truck 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashen-dawn_7980 19 points20 points21 points 5 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Diagnosed autistic for years, officially non-binary/X marker (plan to transition to woman if things line up right), I just wanted to mention this, maybe some of you can relate? When one is kind, helpful, and some people take advantage of that, the moment one starts putting their foot down (it can be an eyeroll, change in tone of voice, body language that says "I've been helping you for four hours! I need my recharge time!") all of a sudden one is "scary?"

I'm sure sometimes one reminds these people of others, specific people or ideas of people? But doesn't it seem an awful lot like sometimes it's a way to get one to stop being a "problem" and get back to being a doormat?

Especially the threat of being seen as "just another typical man, you all act the same"? For...checks notes trying to set boundaries? Trying to prevent burnout? (For context, none of this has to do with romantic stuff, this was all stuff I was "obligated" to do in my community, without pay of course)

[–]AdOtherwise3824 7 points8 points9 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashen-dawn_7980 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdOtherwise3824 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashen-dawn_7980 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and since I was expected to mask a lot (I don't care what others say. I was raised to be male and expected to mask or face severe punishment) or to not use my autism as an "excuse" or even mention it at all, I would think that indicating that I was tired, my speech slowing and becoming flatter, would give the indication that "do I not seem tired to you? Do you have everyone else run you around the county this long? You know I wake up in a panic every 20 minutes at night, right? Because I tell you people!"

I understand what you are saying, I think. I was either too subtle, or not subtle enough. And the people who would try to make me cower back to a doormat were often louder, more blunt, and more aggressive in the words they used and how they spoke them. I can't do double standards very well.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ashen-dawn_7980 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My family didn't call it masking either because that term didn't exist when I was a kid, and probably not for you either. It was coined by the autistic community in the 2010's, even though the concept has been talked about since the 1980's.

For context, I was properly diagnosed at age 16 with autism and Bipolar 2 after I pushed the issue with my school because when I was a kid, my mom didn't want to accept there was a chance I had Bipolar like my biological father after my sister needed to be tested for ADHD, which she does have. Even with the misdiagnosis of ADHD my mom insisted from our family GP, my parents taught me how to mask and made me do it 24/7, although it was closer to conditioning for me. However, even if I had been diagnosed properly at age 5, I would likely have been taught how to mask because, diagnosed or not, most autistic people are taught how to mask during childhood. It might not always stick, but that doesn't stop it being a standard part of certain kinds of therapy for diagnosed autistic kids, especially ABA therapy.

[–]Beautiful-Act-8639 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rump_truck 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On a related note, I frequently see people claim that autistic women are under-diagnosed because women are better at masking, but I think this paper gets at what is really going on. It's not that both autistic men and women are trying to mask as neurotypical, and autistic women do better job of it. Autistic men are trying to mask as neurotypical men, autistic women are trying to mask as neurotypical women.

Autistic people frequently feel like imposters. Most people, when they feel like imposters, tend to sit down, shut up, and try not to be noticed. When an autistic woman does that, she is conforming to female gender roles, and blends in pretty well with neurotypical women. When an autistic man does that, he is failing at male gender roles, and sticks out like a sore thumb.

I think the difference in the masks they are expected to wear is far larger than the difference in their masking skills.

[–]BillysGotAGun 19 points20 points21 points 5 months ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacob11741 7 points8 points9 points 5 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Women are valued as people and humans in a way men are not.

How? I think both genders experience being valued as a human and dehumanisation in different contexts.

Feminists love to point out how they're the more important gender because they "create life"

Never heard this before? Sounds very Christian or conservative. It takes a sperm cell and an egg cell to create life.

the same life they are going to mock for not being successful

I’m sorry that’s your experience. I feel it’s mostly conservative women valuing men on how much they provide? Measuring them by success?

or not being man enough.

That’s strange because feminism wants to abolish patriarchal gender roles. It would be contradictory for a feminist to tell a man to “be man enough” when feminism revolves around wanting to get rid of these patriarchal roles.

[–]Punder_man 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That’s strange because feminism wants to abolish patriarchal gender roles. It would be contradictory for a feminist to tell a man to “be man enough” when feminism revolves around wanting to get rid of these patriarchal roles.

Feminism seems to be going the wrong way about abolishing gender roles for men...
Consider the fact that many feminists still expect men to pay for all dates with women, often citing "The Pay Gap" as a reason for enforcing the "Patriarchal role" of being a provider

Or how men are still expected to risk their health, safety and lives to protect women, and any man who refuses to be held to this "Patriarchal role" is shamed (often by women) as being a coward or "Pussy"

Or how feminists claim they are fighting for men to be able be free to express their emotions rather than bottling them up..
But of course when we as men do open up it is often weaponized against us or we get accused of "Trauma dumping" or saddling women with "Emotional labor" or simply being accused of using women as free therapists or my personal favorite.. we get articles about how a woman's partner opening up emotionally gave here the "Ick"

As such I fail to see any tangible progress feminism or feminists have made to back up the claim of "Feminists are fighting to get rid of patriarchal roles"
If anything it feels like the focus has always been on getting rid of gender based roles for women while still expecting men to be held to gender based roles which women benefit from.

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Consider the fact that many feminists still expect men to pay for all dates with women, often citing "The Pay Gap" as a reason for enforcing the "Patriarchal role" of being a provider

I don’t know a single feminist who does that. Might be an “Anglosphere” sort of thing? It’s not inherently to feminism, where I’m from going 50/50 on dates is key.

Or how men are still expected to risk their health, safety and lives to protect women, and any man who refuses to be held to this "Patriarchal role" is shamed (often by women) as being a coward or "Pussy"

I don’t see how feminists are expecting men to risk their health, safety and lives. Feminism mostly criticises the military.

I don’t think feminists used language such as “pussy” (female genitals) to insult? That’s like the most unfeminist thing ever, to insult someone with female genitalia?

Or how feminists claim they are fighting for men to be able be free to express their emotions rather than bottling them up..

Yes we do

But of course when we as men do open up it is often weaponized against us or we get accused of "Trauma dumping" or saddling women with "Emotional labor" or simply being accused of using women as free therapists or my personal favorite.. we get articles about how a woman's partner opening up emotionally gave here the "Ick"

Yeah mutual emotional labour isn’t recognised enough.

As such I fail to see any tangible progress feminism or feminists have made to back up the claim of "Feminists are fighting to get rid of patriarchal roles"

Well I fail to see how the people you refer to are feminists and not conservative gold diggers?

If anything it feels like the focus has always been on getting rid of gender based roles for women while still expecting men to be held to gender based roles which women benefit from.

It shouldn’t be. I don’t think it is. Although there are definitely strands within feminism where I disagree with their framings.

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaltyPercentage6334 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While I agree with your initial statement that both sexes, especially in the context these people being of lower social class, are dehumanized(I.E women as incubators and men as cannon fodder or demonic aggressors), I would rather you not deny other types of feminists who see themselves, that is, cis females, as being superior due to them being able to birth and that they are martyrs for that. It is also disingenous to assert that feminists do not mock men for being less successful as frankly, there is an alarming number of feminists willing to demonize homeless men and mocking nerdy, unemployed basement dweller types(Ironic as these same imbeciles, despite Tiktok, are still basically unemployed doofuses). Also, while there are feminists who really do want to want a cool utopia where gender roles are done away with like the dated antiques there are, there are many more feminists who unironically assert that men should still have the responsibilities that their gender entails but less of the benefits if not outright blame us collectively for the inception of such notions/institutions. Granted, I do not see feminism as a monolith, ya'll infight like nobody's business, I would just like to point the issues among certain actors of that once noble, now self righteous, ludicrous demographic of chucklefucks, maybe, I guess, to vent, lol.

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I get you. I understand the need to want acknowledgment for your lived experiences. But I just never directly encounter that. My American boyfriend sometimes talks to me about these notions and that makes me wonder whether feminism looks different around the globe. Because here where I live striving for egalitarianism is still a core principle and I’ve never seen feminists who want to “keep the gender roles as they are”. I am concerned about some feminist views I encounter from the UK, where TERFs seem to believe the solution to safety concerns is segregation (like separate public transport). I do not really support such half measures. Make public transport safer for everyone, don’t segregate.

To me rhetoric above sounds illogical because: * Striving for abortion rights doesn’t seem compatible with talks about “women creating life” as that word choice reeks of pro-choice and Christian views to me * Reinforcing gender roles goes directly against patriarchy analysis, the core framework of feminism. Even when feminism isn’t a monolith, patriarchy analysis is usually common.

[–]SaltyPercentage6334 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To be frank, if it were just limited to my lived experience and scopes, I would just be content tarring and feathering these types of feminists. However feminists in the US often engage in cakism, despite being pro choice, the will lord themselves over men because they can birth despite having 0 intent on giving birth as for the second one, it's kind of a weird notion where they view fulfilment of male responsibilities as ostensible reparations where one would assume that they just want the queen treatment at he expense of guys from less priveleged backgrounds.

Heck, I even admitted that feminism isn't a monolith and if the feminists in Europe are more chill(well, not the British ones), good on them. I guess in that sense, feminism is sort of like Christianity in that it's American variants are purile and wretched while the European types are probably MFs one would wanna have a pint with.

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So they see gender roles as inherently fixed? Like tied to the sex you’re born with? Or tied to the gender you identify with?

Like how would that work for you as a trans man. You were brought up as a girl and experienced a female gender role early on I suppose (please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect), but at some point you realised you were a man. Did you then adopt a male gender role? Or is the female gender role you were brought up with in childhood still that part they called “inherent”?

I feel a little stupid here. I’m just really struggling to understand what they meant? To me gender roles are not “inherent” in the sense that yes, we are brought up with them, but no that doesn’t define us and we can break free from them, so that means it’s not “inherent”. Although there will always be influence because we don’t live in a vacuum and our environment does influence us.

[–]purpleblossomleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So they see gender roles as inherently fixed?

I cannot say if they do or not, but gender roles are both social and cultural, and different between men and women in part because of our physical differences, not just the other sociopolitical reasons feminism claims to want to break down but has, sadly, ended up adding to, particularly in the West. (Frankly, the term gender roles is misleading overall because they are based on sex, not gender, or else they wouldn't apply to children until they could affirm their gender as being in line with or different from their sex.)

You're not wrong, I was raised and socialized as female, and also being autistic, I was taught to mask 24/7, where adhering to female gender roles was not optional. As children, the ability to choose our gender roles is not our own, and since my mom refused to accept me for who I have always been, I had no choice. While I fit the stereotypical trans experience, realizing my actual gender early in my life (age 3), that meant I fought to be able to be the boy I knew I was, which is another reason my masking conditioning was so strict on my adherence to female gender roles.

Because of that, I don't see our choice of which gender roles we live with as being inherent, only that they are something society assumes are inherent based on physical differences between men and women. And neither of us can be sure what that person meant if they don't want to explain, we can only speculate.

[–]NoBlacksmith8137feminist guest 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

in part because of our physical differences, not just the other sociopolitical reasons feminism claims to want to break down

If you don’t mind maybe you could elaborate on what you mean here?

Frankly, the term gender roles is misleading overall because they are based on sex, not gender

Yes so true. I guess it’s called “gender role” because in the heteronormative mindset the traits of the role belong with the genders. And if you transition, your traits related to the gender role would suddenly switch as well? Whereas the REAL effect of gender roles is indeed the early wiring in childhood. No matter if you’re non-binary or trans, your parents raised you a certain way based on your external genitalia. And that affected your nervous system in a way. So yes the term is misleading indeed.

I work in child health care and I absolutely startled when I was vaccinating a baby boy who obviously cried after the injections, and his mother said “don’t cry, you’re a boy” to a 2 month old baby! I drove home feeling unwell imagining how he was gonna grow up. I knew the mother was probably just nervous and didn’t know well how to comfort her baby, but still, no need to use sex/gender this way.

I was taught to mask 24/7

I only realised I’m neurodivergent since last summer, after a friend who is a psychologist noticed my stimming behavior. I certainly recognise add in myself, but also audhd. I’m getting a diagnosis soon, I just had my intake. Masking is a real thing. When I tell my environment now that I’m ND, they don’t even believe me because my masking was so successful. I feel like so many people in my life don’t really know me. Anyways figuring out my ND makes me look at social norms very differently. Suddenly I see ableism everywhere. And how much internalised ableism I used to exhibit myself.

It’s also interesting to look at ND through the lens of gender roles. Are there really less ND women compared to men or is the under diagnosis due to the social masking that is part of the female gender role? And what does that mean when men who can’t read social cues well are called “creeps” because they weren’t taught these masking skills (is it a skill or a burden or both).

Well thank you anyways for your replies. I find trans people’s perspectives particularly valuable when we talk about gender roles and lived experience. The problem in online discourse is that for most people it’s really hard to emphasise with experiences of another gender, they are very distinct. The things that hurt the most aren’t always so obvious from the outside, because the gender role related shame we carry inside stays under the surface and doesn’t make itself explicitly visible. Yet I believe the underlying feelings (loneliness, fear of rejection or getting hurt, disillusionment, shame…) are usually more universal than a lot people think.

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NoBlacksmith81370 points 5 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes it does. I’m a doctor working in youth care specialised in infants and toddlers. I actually know the workings of the nervous system very well.

Ever heard about epigenetics? Neuroplasticity?

Attachment? Parentification? Window of tolerance? Polyvagal system?

How we are raised changes our nervous system drastically. If a child is raised in a forest by wolves, it doesn’t know how to speak language and teaching language will be difficult because the brain areas for language and the necessary pathways will be underdeveloped. That’s why toddlers who are in front of an iPad all day show delay in their language development. This is just an example, but we call the first “1000 days” after conception a crucial period to make certain pathways in the brain for life. The tuning of your orthosympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system that are responsible for the fight/flight/freeze response are formed. The way we are raised has a huge impact on our brains.

[–]BloomingBrains 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm autistic and had problems with dating for many years, and it was not because I was too meek and passive. It was because I was too forward and open (a common trait of autistics), which would be more on the assertive side, not passive. It was just that WHAT I was asserting and the way that I was asserting it was seen as "wrong".

Its been said many times that society often expects men to be mind readers when it comes to female comfort, and that's even harder for autistic men. So we end up not realizing someone isn't interested or approaching them in the "wrong" way.

While I agree with your overall thesis that passive men are seen as feminine and therefore bad, I also think that it doesn't really matter whether you're assertive or not unless you're a certain kind of (read: neurotypical and non queer) man. People are very hypocritical. They act like autistic virgins are bad for being assertive but reward men who do way more sexually aggressive things that you would think would get called sexist based on feminist rhetoric.

[–]Pale-Mongoose7029 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaffacakes-and-Jesus 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments