Anon is right | MensRights

[+]MagicTampon1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (73 children) | Copy Link

Repeat: "The only time anyone ever prods a guy to 'be a man' is when they are trying to convince him to do something that is not in his best interest."

[–]8880886 74 points75 points76 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_More_Candy 55 points56 points57 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthCerebroX 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You act like showing weakness or emotion is somehow “un-masculine” and we need to be okay with men not being masculine...

But I disagree... just because a man shows weakness, emotion, needs a little support.. that doesn’t mean he isn’t masculine. If a man is able to overcome those obstacles and push through his problems to come out on top (even with the help and support from his loved ones).... That’s the definition of masculinity in my opinion.

Plus... as the other guy pointed out, right now many men are the most “feminine” they have been in all of history. Men have let women dictate what it means to be a “good man” and they have turned generations of men into weak willed, spineless, and subservient lap dogs that will go along with whatever the female hive mind decides is “right”. Decades of shaming men have caused men to feel ashamed or guilty for their masculinity and that’s wrong...

The last thing we need is for men to lose even more of their masculinity.

Men need to stop letting women define what it means to be a man... and stop letting women dictate how we are supposed to talk, behave and think.

They don’t have a fucking clue what the male experience is like... but yet they like to pretend they do. It’s ironic because women are always going on and on about how men don’t know what it’s like to be a woman and how men don’t get to decide what a woman is supposed to be..... But yet they have no problem turning around and acting like they know what it’s like to be a man and trying to define masculinity for us.

[–]iainmf 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]draino_chugger 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men need to stop letting women define what it means to be a man... and stop letting women dictate how we are supposed to talk, behave and think.

This used to be something men were able to do and there were customs, rituals, places, etc. to facilitate it - where men could exercise some (limited) power over what it "means" to be a man. This stuff ranged from tribal initiation rituals and "men's councils" segregated from "women's councils" all the way through to male-only social clubs and that sort of thing. We are - and historically, men have been - aware of the tremendous power that women have over men and over society generally when it comes to, for lack of a better word, "public morality" or what is or is not socially acceptable speech and behaviour. These kinds of customs and institutions, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, existed as somewhat of a foil to this, allowing men to define themselves and their place in the world in relation to themselves and their own minds and to each other.

As we know, these customs and institutions have been steadily eroded and often dismantled entirely over the last hundred years or so. And some of the feminist criticism of these things were quite valid - for instance, that they tended to become "old boys clubs" where influential men would practice nepotism in regards to political and financial power and exclude women from access to these things that they were starting to desire (what is usually not mentioned is that the institutions that were the worst offenders here also tended to be exclusively upper-class as well as male and lower class men were also excluded). What was lost in the rush to accommodate women in this area was that these institutions had other social functions than just being a spooky patriarchal conspiracy to keep the ladies down. They also served as places where men and manhood were able to develop out from under the often utterly self-serving and stifling gaze of mothers and wives (and, indeed, away from men's own seemingly irresistible instinct to compete with each other and alter their behaviour in other ways when around women). As a result of this and the huge number of fatherless families, I would claim that men today - manhood and male behaviour - are defined more by women's preferences than at any other point in history and the effects are starting to be felt in ways that the feminist theorists of the 60's and 70's and their successors today could not predict.

They don’t have a fucking clue what the male experience is like... but yet they like to pretend they do. It’s ironic because women are always going on and on about how men don’t know what it’s like to be a woman and how men don’t get to decide what a woman is supposed to be..... But yet they have no problem turning around and acting like they know what it’s like to be a man and trying to define masculinity for us.

Feminists at least have a ready made excuse for this behaviour - it's called "standpoint theory" or "standpoint feminism". It's one of the major theoretical concepts to emerge from the "second wave". There's a lot of jargon and pseudo-academic obscurantism in how this is defined and constructed, but when you boil it down, it basically means that the "oppressed class" (women) know what life is like for their oppressors for a variety of reasons, but the reverse is not true for the "oppressor class" (men). It emerges via bastardisation of an old Marxist notion that the working class, by virtue of it's position - or "standpoint" - as the actual producers of value in the economic system, were capable of a broader view or consciousness of the world they lived in than the owning class, who were most often quite distant from the reality of production, but maintained a hegemony over the culture, thus making their position visible to all (though I should point out that even the dichotomy of "oppressed/oppressor class" is itself, at best, a misreading of Marxist theory).

You can already see that there is a fair amount of theoretical gymnastics necessary to apply this to the sexes. For example, the material relation to the means and process of production was the basis for this idea in Marxism, not a hand-wavey and ill-defined notion of hierarchy. "Women" are not anything close to equivalent to "proletarians" in this paradigm (and indeed, in the strict Marxist sense, "women" is not a discrete social class to begin with) and men have never had the kind of overarching cultural dominance that would be required for this to make sense. Even if you could, as feminists sometimes do, make a case for this prior to the mid-20th century, it is a completely untenable position today. This is, at least in my opinion based on my own studies, one of the major reasons (one of the others being the overtly bourgeois class character of the movement at this time) that the mid- and late-period second wave of feminism broke completely away from Marxism. What went on to become "feminist theory" was simply too far removed.

Nevertheless, when you encounter a feminist who tells you that males cannot possibly understand female experience but insist that females can and do understand the male experience, standpoint theory is usually where they'll retreat to if pressed on it (and if they are even aware of feminist theory at all - many self-professed feminists are not). So it might be worth reading up a little on it and making up your own mind. Here is a good place to start, if you're interested in some detail.

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

[–]Kuramo 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loviatar2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]DeificNord 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Real_DerekFoster 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]zalinanaruto 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lv_InSaNe_vL 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]The_Real_DerekFoster 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zalinanaruto 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I cry or get very close to it quite often because I have depression and I hate it so much the frustration of wanting to be happy and sociable and not have to think about how much I hate myself just overwhelms me at times.

After a year and a half of therapy and medication I think (I cant say I have) I have gotten to a point where my desire to improve my life is getting stronger than the desire for death and I know that the only way Ill ever be better is if I can make myself loose weight.

Throughout all of this I can categorically say that the only good advice Ive been given has been from places like this or from other men who understand that for us platitudes and niceties are never going to work.

The most glaring example is between my male and female friends and their support around how I see myself and how this results in my inability to have confidence in myself and therefore attract women. My male friends all know that its because I lock myself away, I have no hobbies and Im too fat, they will say this because it needs to be said and some of these guys are very successful with women and will admit that they dont understand how I find it so difficult but still offer advice that makes a difference. My female friends cannot empathise at all and can only offer advice that they know would work for them or their friends, the nicest and most useless piece of advice ever given to a man or boy "Just be yourself, youll find someone". No. No I wont. Who have I been the last couple of decades? Ive not been walking around pretending to be someone else, I have 'just been myself' and its failed miserably.

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

[–]DarthStrixis 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tylerthet3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManRAh 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrMultibeast 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nachtliche 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pathfinder24 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arakin-4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]phoenix335 -40 points-39 points-38 points 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 36 points37 points38 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoulofEquality 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zulu127 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]phoenix335 -23 points-22 points-21 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't know and I don't care, because I care about men's rights. Treat others as good as you want, not my primary concern (but don't oppress them either).

If women need to "man up" is a whole different ballgame and to do that "fairly" entails a million different opinions on what is fair and what isn't. I can't do that and I suspect most individual humans cannot judge fairness for everyone all by themselves.

If men "man up" and don't let themselves be walked over pushed over pushed back marginalized and demonized, it's enough for me. I don't push others down.

That's the advantage and disadvantage of being a man. You don't get anything by whining, but you also don't need the pity and mercy of others to assert and validate your own rights.

I am aware that this is said way easier than it is done, especially when raised in an SJW environment and or by a dominant or single mother, even if only for a lack of benevolent but manly male role models.

[–]BlindGardener 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]phoenix335 -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlindGardener 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]phoenix335 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Honest question: Does that tactic work as intended? It feels like mirroring the "being offended" tactic that was and is employed to the hilt by every feminist under the sun. I suspect even if it was successful, it leads to more walking on eggshells for everyone involved.

Getting offended feels to me like it gives others unearned and undeserved powers over myself, and I refuse to give them a victory.

But judging on the response this thread drew, "man up" is something that many people hear or are forced to hear far too often and react very angry to as a result. It didn't happen to me that often and maybe I was too careless about it, because I had the advantage of not being haunted by that so much.

But most of the time, the demand to "man up" is really nothing about being a man at all, but a wrapper for the demand to suck up injustice, infringement of their rights, insults, injury and whatnot.

That is messing with people's heads, because it is the polar exact opposite of what manning up actually is.

Now I understand why people have that angry reaction to these words. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way around "being a man" when the goal is having men's rights, so we can't avoid that process. We can't "not man up" either, anyway. But responding with allegations of sexism would in my opinion lead to a shouting contest "you are sexist", "no YOU are sexist" etc ad infinitum and you won't get any feminist or SJWs to admit any personal fault ever anyway.

I think a response to an undue or harmful demand like that would be to call out the actual motive behind that, so in a sense "You want me to give up my rights and want to mold me into a docile sheep and that's not going to happen". If all else fails think in your head "I will man up if you be a good woman and make me a sandwich". That would improve my mood in such a discussion significantly..

[–]PietroGori6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]phoenix335 -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't.

Men can be victims. I said men should try to stop being one and that is very different. Others can embrace their victimhood and wrap their lives and identities around it. Men don't. Hold your head high and stop taking shit. Not fighting, raging - just shrugging many things off is very often enough.

That is a traditional gender role. True. You can't fight SJWism and dissolve traditional gender roles, like you can't have your cake and eat it.

Trying to stop being a victim entails a ton of things, like trying to stop talking shit, stop taking shit and getting the upper hand to one's emotions. Just saying no and walking is terribly effective.

This is a question of choosing the right paradigm when trying to improve men's rights. You can't have men's rights without striving to be a man first. Complaining that women get better treatment in area XYZ is futile, since the only option to avoid that would be to make men and women identical. Which is the SJWs Holy Grail and the reason for all the problems, so it can't be the solution, obviously. So yeah, women don't get asked to man up. We know. Big deal, won't happen, and doesn't matter for us. Fight back where our rights are infringed (child custody, alimony law, sexual accusations, the eradication of all male behavior from kids) instead of caring about the rights of others.

[–]Tedesche 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]phoenix335 -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]4x8x16 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aeponix -30 points-29 points-28 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or they're trying to get him to take responsibility for himself.

I'm not saying men don't need help sometimes. They do. But this victim narrative needs to die.

A lot of young people today don't know how to take responsibility for themselves. They don't understand that sometimes, being an adult means stowing your shit and pushing forward.

The world is not a safe space. We may not live in the jungle anymore, but make no mistake, this world will chew you up and spit you out if you don't fight for your survival.

Instead of fighting with your fists or your words, you fight by educating yourself. You fight by figuring out what you're lacking and working every day to fix it. You fight by finding a need society will pay you a living wage for, and filling it.

We have no inherent value, and whinging about it isn't going to fix it, at least not quickly. In the mean time, the best thing you can do is fight tooth and nail for yourself, because no one else will.

[–]QUAN-FUSION 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you fucking serious?? This guy is basically saying sometimes its okay to not fight. It's okay to let your guard down. It's extremely draining to constantly be fighting.

I can't believe you could read something like this and still write what you did.

You have no idea what he has been through and you are presuming it must be his lack of responsibility?!?

He is asking for help. This one time. and you are accusing him of playing the victim..

You sound really fucking ignorant. One of those people who would tell a depressed person to just 'get over it'.

Man or woman, we are all human and experience the full range of emotions. But in society, it's deemed as 'weak' for a male to ever not be 100% 'tough' That mentality has a horrible effect. Not all men are created equal. Some process emotions differently - some are born more 'sensitive' ( in tune ). It isn't a weakness, it's the beauty of being part of a diverse existence. Some are painters and poets, others are builders and soldiers. We shouldn't all be made to fit this one archaic mould.

[–]DarthCerebroX 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_ALL_THE_BOOBIE 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackGetsIt -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wambo45 -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

This sub really echoes a lot of "toxic masculinity" rhetoric.

It isn't controversial to claim some aspects of male gender roles encourage men to act in ways which are potentially harmful to themselves or others.

For example, white knighting encourages men to throw other men under the bus in order to please women. Macho-dominance showboating to impress women and prove oneself "the better man" is this kind of thing too.

The idea that your manhood can be socially revoked is extremely destructive to men and creates the whole "precarious manhood" complex. It can also encourage violence in certain situations.

The idea that a real man sacrifices himself for the sake of his woman certainly encourages a lot of men into careers that literally kill them.

The problem with feminist criticisms of traditional masculinity is that they only criticize aspects of traditional masculinity which inconvenience women/feminists; they regularly promote/reinforce aspects of traditional masculinity which work in favor of women/feminists. They never care about the impact on men, only the further impacts on women/feminists. This is the problem with feminist criticism of traditional male gender roles... not that they're criticizing masculinity, but they're criticizing masculinity in an entirely gynocentric, self-interested manner and thus operating off traditionalist premises.

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

For example, white knighting encourages men to throw other men under the bus in order to please women. Macho-dominance showboating to impress women and prove oneself "the better man" is this kind of thing too.

If by white knighting, you're referring to the pandering men do because they think it garners them favor in a woman's eyes, well pandering is not a masculine thing to do. If by showboating, you mean gaudy pageantry and vanity, well that isn't masculine either. In fact, they're all behaviors that women tend to engage in. Who're you letting define masculinity for you? This question is undoubtedly at the core of my criticism of a percentage of the patrons of this sub.

The idea that your manhood can be socially revoked is extremely destructive to men and creates the whole "precarious manhood" complex. It can also encourage violence in certain situations.

Masculinity has to be held to a standard. If my buddy is pissing and moaning about, and generally acting pathetic and weak, it's my duty out of love for him to slap him on the back and tell him he's being a pussy and that he needs to do better. We can talk it out and work on what's troubling him, but the wallowing, the self-pity, the crying, the neuroticism has to stop first in order to fix the problem. Your fragility in that situation is your own responsibility. The meme in OP is an example of someone who's not willing to take that first step. They're indulging in their sorrow, and think they ought to have a right to that. Tough love is still love. I think perhaps what you're meaning to imply, is the callous, unloving nature in which this can take place. And there I would agree with you, but that's merely an indictment on callousness, not on the general exhortation that men be held to a standard, or that "manhood" is something earned rather than embodied as a birthright. You have to know how to distinguish between tough love and crass dismissal. There is a way to do it right, but it almost certainly has to be done. And furthermore, manhood aside altogether, everyone has to get past that initial stage of neuroticism in order to address problems in their lives.

The problem with feminist criticisms of traditional masculinity is that they only criticize aspects of traditional masculinity which inconvenience women/feminists; they regularly promote/reinforce aspects of traditional masculinity which work in favor of women/feminists.

Which is why you shouldn't take feminists seriously. My issue is that I see a lot of men teeter on this line in this sub. I see men who're simply looking to be treated like women, who don't see the utterly foolish prospect of egalitarianism, and who are clearly resentful about the fact that they have to live up to a standard in order to be respected, and more importantly, admired by other people - female or not. They're looking for a free pass to fail to live up to their potential. Many of them invoke the harsher experiences of men to justify their resent, despite never having worked a dangerous job, fought in a war, or any of the common statistics you'll see cited. They could very likely be some fat, lazy slob working some dead end job somewhere, not doing shit with their life, and merely using these factoids as a scapegoat to feel sorry for themselves. And we do those folks a disservice by giving out unvetted hugs, and validating their claims to righteous indignation. I am not keen on allowing men to live vicariously through guys like me, who've worked harder than 99% of Western men, and who've almost died or been maimed on the job a number of times, so that they can post an all-caps meme declaring their right to "be weak". I can guarantee you, that while for some of us around here we could use a little more sensitivity and personal introspection, there is undoubtedly a lot of men here whom the last thing they need is to be told to sit around and "be weak" for a while, because "they've earned it", because "they're disposable", and it's "hard being a man", and yada, yada, yada. I say, bullshit.

Because look, all of this is taking place within this axiom that it is important what feminists think; that it is important what even average women think. A lot of posts around here begin from this presumption, which is a fundamental flaw to start with. That is the irony. So many men are whining about what women or society expects from them, but their cries are an attempt for sympathy with the intention of stimulating a correction for this "flaw" in society. This is a fool's errand and there is no solace in peddling appeals for pity. The answer is a complicated one, but one which starts with defining the parameters of your personhood for yourself, and developing yourself to your fullest potential. My concern is that when I hear the echoes of this "toxic masculinity" talk, what I fear is that this is a surreptitious abandonment of masculinity. And I get that vibe a lot on this sub. And to my mind, that is an inadvertent capitulation to feminist drivel. Now that's not to say it's everyone here, let me be clear. That'd be a ridiculous assertion. But what I do notice is a distinct lack of contrarian voices who're reasoning with some of the more resentful and angry ones. /u/BillyBattts did a great job of this somewhere in this thread, replying to someone bitching and whining, and it was a refreshing read.

Then again, maybe I'm full of shit. I don't happen to think so.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Who're you letting define masculinity for you?

I'm going by society's general expectations of men. That's what defines the masculine gender role. What society expects of you.

You're simply substituting your own ideal of what men should be like, claiming that this is objectively correct/real, and avoiding the argument. Because you don't like to connect negative things with the word "masculinity" for some reason.

Masculinity has to be held to a standard.

Why should men be held to different moral standards/expectations than women? That's the more interesting question I think.

I see men who're simply looking to be treated like women, who don't see the utterly foolish prospect of egalitarianism, and who are clearly resentful about the fact that they have to live up to a standard in order to be respected, and more importantly, admired by other people - female or not.

Don't you think that people due to being human deserve to be treated with at least a modicum of dignity and civility?

Again, why should men be held to different standards than women simply because they are men?

I agree that having one's character respected or admired is something that requires living up to certain standards, but why should these standards be different for men and women in the first place?

They could very likely be some fat, lazy slob working some dead end job somewhere, not doing shit with their life, and merely using these factoids as a scapegoat to feel sorry for themselves. And we do those folks a disservice by giving out unvetted hugs, and validating their claims to righteous indignation. I am not keen on allowing men to live vicariously through guys like me, who've worked harder than 99% of Western men, and who've almost died or been maimed on the job a number of times, so that they can post an all-caps meme declaring their right to "be weak".

Ahhh yes, the usual "I'm a real man, these others aren't" humblebrag. I think this is telling of your motives.

Because look, all of this is taking place within this axiom that it is important what feminists think; that it is important what even average women think.

I don't see anyone ascribing to that axiom at all.

So many men are whining about what women or society expects from them, but their cries are an attempt for sympathy with the intention of stimulating a correction for this "flaw" in society.

Why the scare quotes? If the social expectations placed upon men are irrational, outdated and/or morally unjustifiable, why are these social expectations not flawed?

This is a fool's errand and there is no solace in peddling appeals for pity.

Its not pity that is desired. But why is this a fool's errand?

The answer is a complicated one, but one which starts with defining the parameters of your personhood for yourself

That's individualism, which is a good thing. However, traditional masculinity does not support that. Traditional masculinity says that "because you are male, you must do x/y/z in order to be thought of as a good man." It is a set of social demands that override an individual's self-defined personhood.

My concern is that when I hear the echoes of this "toxic masculinity" talk, what I fear is that this is a surreptitious abandonment of masculinity.

Again, why shouldn't we be critical of society's demands upon men?

And you note there is a huge inconsistency between defending "masculinity" and defending "defining the parameters of your personhood for yourself" right? You can have the latter or the former but not both.

But what I do notice is a distinct lack of contrarian voices who're reasoning with some of the more resentful and angry ones.

Not an argument. Why is it illegitimate for men to resent aspects of the society they are in? What is wrong with resentment and anger? Do these automatically invalidate someone's complaints?

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm going by society's general expectations of men. That's what defines the masculine gender role. What society expects of you.

"Society" doesn't expect you to white knight or to flaunt vanity and status. Those examples were inadequate to make your point, and they don't represent masculinity.

You're simply substituting your own ideal of what men should be like, claiming that this is objectively correct/real, and avoiding the argument. Because you don't like to connect negative things with the word "masculinity" for some reason.

On the contrary, I could list quite a few negative behaviors that can come from masculinity. I am however rejecting this notion of yours that masculinity is in itself pathological on a whole to shitty behavior, as well as the notion that society expects the shitty behaviors you listed, just because you're a man.

Why should men be held to different moral standards/expectations than women? That's the more interesting question I think.

You're taking what I said out of context. I never suggested a difference in moral standards. The standard I'm speaking of, is in the quality of strength in which masculinity plays a role. It's inexorable. Fragility is inherently non-masculine. If you want to be regarded as masculine, there is a certain level of stoicism and pragmatism which must be applied to confronting adversity, which you just can't attribute to a blubbering baby, endlessly wallowing in self-pity. So if you want to be that guy, you can be that guy, but it's absolutely foolish for you to expect society to still regard you as a masculine individual.

Don't you think that people due to being human deserve to be treated with at least a modicum of dignity and civility?

Of course. I think decency is extremely important in maintaining civilization. But if you mean to imply that you're not treated with dignity, simply because you're a man, then that is precisely the kind of whiny melodrama that I'm criticizing. It's just not true.

Again, why should men be held to different standards than women simply because they are men?

To be clear, I'm not talking about moral standards. We're all expected to be equally good people. But it ought to be abundantly obvious why men and women are held to different standards in regards to certain behaviors and contributions to society. We are different. Do you not acknowledge that?

I agree that having one's character respected or admired is something that requires living up to certain standards, but why should these standards be different for men and women in the first place?

Well first off, they're not entirely different. In fact, I'd say most of these expectations are the same; the vast majority even. But there are certain biological differences which make the sexes better suited to particular endeavors, and there's nothing immoral or inequitable about taking those into consideration when shaping behavior. You can't help the emergent desires in behavior that are influenced by our perspective on things like gender roles. Whatever relatively minor variance therein, it's still a fact that these desires and expectations will come up. They are not deterministic per se, but they are certainly innate and to some degree inevitable.

Ahhh yes, the usual "I'm a real man, these others aren't" humblebrag. I think this is telling of your motives.

There's nothing humble or passive about it. I am blatantly taking pride in my accomplishments, and I'm overtly calling for others to be held accountable for their own. My motive has never been a mystery, nor even up for debate regarding this conversation. I've been pretty forthcoming. I think there's a lot of whiny bullshit going on, which is merely using the oft forgotten and underappreciated facts about the adversities that men have traditionally endured to build civilization, so that they can justify resentment towards society for what could very well be their own failings in getting what they want out of life. In light of raising awareness for these facts, I feel they should be embraced as a point of pride for men, not repudiated by the likes of men who don't want to participate.

Why the scare quotes? If the social expectations placed upon men are irrational, outdated and/or morally unjustifiable, why are these social expectations not flawed?

If it were that simple, and you gave a substantial example of an irrational, morally unjustifiable expectation, then I'd absolutely agree that it's flawed. It would serve no purpose to society and would only do harm to men. That's a no-brainer. But you're missing the point of my initial criticism, in which I didn't object to anything that you just said. The point is there is an abundance of examples in this thread and many others in this sub, of guys bitching about very rational, very justifiable, very understandable expectations, and then going on these resentful tangents about how unfair life is for them. Surely you see this stuff occasionally. The meme in OP is an example. The behavior is simply that of a childish tantrum. I would regard it as neither masculine, nor feminine. It's just childish angst. And yet, you've got a top voted comment which deals in an irrational absolute, giving the advice that you should always regard someone telling you to "man up" as a harm being inflicted on you. Get. Fucking. Real. Absolutely fucking stupid. It is maddening that so many men in this sub up voted that comment, and that no one is pointing out how utterly juvenile that meme was.

Traditional masculinity says that "because you are male, you must do x/y/z in order to be thought of as a good man." It is a set of social demands that override an individual's self-defined personhood.

Incorrect. They are not things you must do to be thought of as good. They are things you must do to be thought of as masculine. You are the one who is interpreting that to mean good.

Again, why shouldn't we be critical of society's demands upon men?

That depends on if by critical you mean critical thinking, or if you mean it in the "critical theory" sense, where you're merely advocating for their dissolution. The two are not synonymous. I think it's healthy to be skeptical, to question and to make moral judgements in order to make our society better. I don't however think it's healthy to completely rid ourselves of the idea, in a sort of sophisticated, pseudo intellectual version of knocking all the pieces off the board in a tantrum, and trying to restart the game with new rules of egalitarianism, as if to suggest that's the correct way to move forward in modernity. I think it's foolish and impossible. Egalitarianism is a quaint idea in theory, but it's a ridiculous idea in practice.

And you note there is a huge inconsistency between defending "masculinity" and defending "defining the parameters of your personhood for yourself" right? You can have the latter or the former but not both.

Not at all. And this is probably the biggest underlying theme in your arguments that I am in contention with. You want to redefine what masculinity is. I'm here to tell you that it is only so malleable, and that you're not going to rid certain sentiments about duty, honor, stoicism, work ethic, etc from the term. It's just not going to happen. But you're free as an individual to invent yourself as you see fit. Your life is your performance, and you can be whatever you want. And to be frank, that's seemingly only becoming more and more true as time goes on. But if you want to be regarded as a manly, man's man kind of man, you're going to have to embody and embrace the sorts of values which make up the constituent properties that define that concept. I happen to embody a lot of masculine values, and I did that purely out of a sense of individualism and personal achievement. I didn't do it because "society expected it of me". I didn't do it because "women". It's just who I am. And you are who you are, and who you choose to be. If it turns out that you're not a very masculine individual, then you can't expect people to regard you as one. If that bothers you, because you don't like the idea of feeling emasculated, you're free to make adjustments. What you can't do though, is redefine the terms. And what you shouldn't do, is start parroting feminist drivel about masculinity being a net negative toxic force.

Why is it illegitimate for men to resent aspects of the society they are in? What is wrong with resentment and anger? Do these automatically invalidate someone's complaints?

No, obviously they don't automatically invalidate their complaints. That said, I really shouldn't have to tell you what's wrong with resentment and anger. It's not healthy, nor productive to walk around with a chip on your shoulder about an exaggerated delusion that you're some oppressed victim of gender roles, imposed on you purely arbitrarily as an illegitimate social construct. This is no different than the pitfalls of feminist ideology. It's complete nonsense. People need to come to terms with reality and find a way to reconcile, not adopt an aggressive, angry, quasi revolutionary disposition towards social reform, fueled by a victim narrative.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

"Society" doesn't expect you to white knight or to flaunt vanity and status.

Society just means the preponderance of other individuals. And if you don't think that the preponderance of other individuals (at least in the west) doesn't believe in some kind of chivalric "men should protect and provide for women" ideal then I don't know what to say to you.

On the contrary, I could list quite a few negative behaviors that can come from masculinity. I am however rejecting this notion of yours that masculinity is in itself pathological on a whole to shitty behavior

Okay, so you're accepting that some components of masculinity are bad. That's precisely my position and I don't think all components of masculinity are bad.

What I am against is societal notions of masculinity being used to control men.

as well as the notion that society expects the shitty behaviors you listed, just because you're a man.

Depends on what you mean by "expects." Society doesn't necessarily demand men act in accordance with the "bad kind" of masculinity but it often excuses and "expects" in the probability sense men acting that way.

I never suggested a difference in moral standards. The standard I'm speaking of, is in the quality of strength in which masculinity plays a role. It's inexorable. Fragility is inherently non-masculine. If you want to be regarded as masculine

So why would someone want to be regarded as masculine in the first place?

Because masculinity has positive value judgments attached to it when men live up to it. That's why. It is a moral demand placed on a specific sex. The minute something is ascribed a positive or negative value significance we're in the realm of ethics.

Of course. I think decency is extremely important in maintaining civilization. But if you mean to imply that you're not treated with dignity, simply because you're a man, then that is precisely the kind of whiny melodrama that I'm criticizing. It's just not true.

No, I'm implying that men who do not live up to society's ideal of masculinity are treated indecently. Also, the rights of men in the west have inferior legal protections to the rights of women.

Criticizing any complains as "whining" is just dismissing the entire MHRM cause.

We're all expected to be equally good people. But it ought to be abundantly obvious why men and women are held to different standards in regards to certain behaviors and contributions to society. We are different. Do you not acknowledge that?

Non sequitur. Yes, men and women are not the same. But if you believe morality is based on human nature (and/or that nature's interaction with the rest of reality), and that both men and women are humans to an equal extent, it follows that morality must be gender-neutral.

Again, the notions of "good man" and "good woman" are moralized ones since they're ascribed value-significance. If morality is gender-neutral then "good man" and "good woman" (when referring to men qua men or women qua women) are ridiculous notions.

But there are certain biological differences which make the sexes better suited to particular endeavors, and there's nothing immoral or inequitable about taking those into consideration when shaping behavior. You can't help the emergent desires in behavior that are influenced by our perspective on things like gender roles. Whatever relatively minor variance therein, it's still a fact that these desires and expectations will come up. They are not deterministic per se, but they are certainly innate and to some degree inevitable.

Again your argument doesn't follow. If men and women simply do have natural differences on average, then that means the majority of men and women will follow these natural differences on average (and of course there will be outliers and atypicals, which is fine). Why do we need to construct elaborate systems of social shaming, humiliation, pressure and compulsion to make people follow these tendencies if these tendencies are natural in the first place?

If you accept that there are some on-average differences which shape behavior, then the rational position is that such social structures are unnecessary. Not that they're "natural."

I am blatantly taking pride in my accomplishments, and I'm overtly calling for others to be held accountable for their own.

Okay. Why should women be held to lower or different standards? Why shouldn't they be held to the exact same set of merit-based criteria?

The meme in OP is an example. The behavior is simply that of a childish tantrum.

So men should never vent? Men should never have space to be outraged or angry? Men should never be able to get things off their chest in the way that suits them as individuals? The fact that men are capable of being victimized should never be acknowledged?

Not at all. And this is probably the biggest underlying theme in your arguments that I am in contention with. You want to redefine what masculinity is. I'm here to tell you that it is only so malleable, and that you're not going to rid certain sentiments about duty, honor, stoicism, work ethic, etc from the term. It's just not going to happen.

Please provide a solution to the Problem Of Universals which proves that abstractions like "masculinity" and "femininity" exist entirely independently of the human consciousness, then. Because you're trying to claim there is an objectively real "masculinity" (which allegedly exists outside both individual and social mindsets) and I'd like to see an actual argument for that proposition.

But you're free as an individual to invent yourself as you see fit. Your life is your performance, and you can be whatever you want. And to be frank, that's seemingly only becoming more and more true as time goes on.

Thank you.

But if you want to be regarded as a manly, man's man kind of man, you're going to have to embody and embrace the sorts of values which make up the constituent properties that define that concept.

Which would be fine if "masculinity" were a purely descriptive label. The problem is that it has historically been a prescriptive concept. It says that these traits are not merely relatively common amongst males relative to females, but that all males must rigidly display a very large amount of all these traits at all times and that any male who fails to do so deserves to be shunned and cast out.

And what you shouldn't do, is start parroting feminist drivel about masculinity being a net negative toxic force.

Again that's a misunderstanding of what my position actually is.

It's not healthy, nor productive to walk around with a chip on your shoulder about an exaggerated delusion that you're some oppressed victim of gender roles, imposed on you purely arbitrarily as an illegitimate social construct.

Perhaps the only reason you don't see gender roles as "imposed arbitrarily as an illegitimate social construct" is because apparently these roles don't inflict costs upon you which you can't or won't pay. But don't be solipsistic and presume that all men share your experiences.

Because the MHRM is full of men whom have incurred steep costs, attributable in whole or part to traditional notions of gender roles (even the lack of legal protections for men follows the pattern of traditional gender roles and was codified into law by chivalrous male politicians).

I mean if you want to trumpet about the glory days of some macho past where men were men and men were kings (let us ignore the inconvenient fact that almost all men, historically, were some kind of serf) feel free to go off and be a Neomasculinist with Roosh V or Jack Donovan. I however prefer to remain a Men's Human Rights Advocate along with Warren Farrell.

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And if you don't think that the preponderance of other individuals (at least in the west) doesn't believe in some kind of chivalric "men should protect and provide for women" ideal then I don't know what to say to you.

It's irresponsible to conflate all appeals for the physically dominant sex to be protectors, with petty white knighting. The ideal is born from an attempt to organize society so that the strongest defend the weakest, which is a noble cause. It is not intended to be a capitulation of subservience to women, in order to curry favor with them in the hopes that you'll get laid. That is a pathetic perversion of the ideal by weak, self-centered men who're attempting to manipulate their environment for their own personal gain. In your estimation, is it a problem that the vast majority of all security guards, police officers and military combat roles are men, assuming these are voluntary?

What I am against is societal notions of masculinity being used to control men.

Do you feel controlled?

So why would someone want to be regarded as masculine in the first place?

Me personally? Because it has made my the quality of my life better. It has made me more self reliant, durable and independent. It has also put me in a position where I can give strong advice and help to others around me when they are in need, essentially strengthening the community around me. It makes me happy that I can do that. I'm grateful that I can take good care of myself.

Because masculinity has positive value judgments attached to it when men live up to it. That's why. It is a moral demand placed on a specific sex. The minute something is ascribed a positive or negative value significance we're in the realm of ethics.

Two points:

1.) As you pointed out earlier, and as feminists love to point out all of the time, many would argue it has perhaps far more negative value judgments and needs to be done away with altogether.

2.) You're making a leap in logic in presuming that my, or anyone else's for that matter, primary motivation for embracing masculinity is to please others.

No, I'm implying that men who do not live up to society's ideal of masculinity are treated indecently.

I can see where that is sometimes true, but I think you're grossly overstating it. I have met countless men who're not physically fit, don't do any hard labor, have no masculine hobbies, can't fight, can't fix anything, aren't wealthy, etc, and they still have friends, girlfriends, wives, children, etc. Nobody gives them shit for this, and this is especially true when I visit big metropolitan areas, which I do pretty regularly. I think men are held to a relatively low standard of masculinity these days. I think the kinds of coercion you're alluding to have only become more and more relaxed. I think you're overestimating the derision men experience for not being masculine, while underestimating the derision men experience for being masculine. Masculinity seems to be waning, and I think it's a mistake to help see it out the door. Is there room for reformation and improvement in how we view masculinity? Abso-fucking-lutely. Is it time that we delegitimize it completely? No.

Also, the rights of men in the west have inferior legal protections to the rights of women.

And this is a completely legitimate complaint in which I stand firmly beside you.

But if you believe morality is based on human nature (and/or that nature's interaction with the rest of reality), and that both men and women are humans to an equal extent, it follows that morality must be gender-neutral.

"Equally human" is an abstract idea. It's certainly not quantifiable, unless you merely mean to point out we're the same species. But that obviously ignores the point, now doesn't it? We're not the same, therefore we're not truly equal in any real sense of the word. Our differences lead us to find different things attractive, including the undertakings we preoccupy our lives with. If you're going to question the legitimacy of gender roles to such a degree, because they influence our decisions on such a systemic level that we can't even trust voluntarism to sort things out equitably, would it be safe to assume that you want them disavowed altogether? And if so, do you not envision an egalitarian world, where men and women truly make up 50% of every role, occupation, etc as potentially harmful and oppressive by stripping people's choices away altogether? You would essentially be disallowing men and women to be men and women, because you're operating under this false pretense that there's nothing innate about gender. Social constructs do not exist independent of nature and evolutionary behavior. Gender was not a decree signed by some king, and then imposed as a law of the land. It is an emergent property of human psychology, and it happens to correlate extremely closely with biological sex. You can argue that civility must be practiced in how we treat those who do not follow this typical correlation, and that would be a righteous civil rights cause, but it would be nothing short of misguided and authoritarian to attempt to rid society of the notion of gender.

Okay. Why should women be held to lower or different standards? Why shouldn't they be held to the exact same set of merit-based criteria?

They shouldn't be held to a different standard in the case of let's say, obtaining employment. Those things obviously have to be based on merit. But as far as our personal feelings and perspective towards a given individual, it would be asinine to hold women to the same standard as men when it comes to being a construction worker, for instance. Whereas if a woman couldn't hack it in that job, we'd find no fault in their character, and that would be reasonable. But if a man couldn't hack it in that job, we'd at least have a few questions before we determined whether he reasonably couldn't or simply refused to hack it. Do you find that immoral or unreasonable? I feel like we're really getting into some deep philosophical arguments about the epistemological underpinnings of every concept we're bringing up. Do we even know if we agree on what morality is? Do you subscribe to utilitarianism? Are you a pragmatist? We might want to flesh this out at the fundamental levels before we continue, at the risk of talking past one another, which I fear we're already doing.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's irresponsible to conflate all appeals for the physically dominant sex to be protectors, with petty white knighting. The ideal is born from an attempt to organize society so that the strongest defend the weakest, which is a noble cause.

The idea that the strong should defend the weak should be applied on an individualistic basis, not a gender-based one. Just because the average man is stronger than the average woman does not imply that all men have a duty to protect and provide for all women. White Knighting is a simple byproduct of gender-based applications of "the strong should protect the weak."

If the strong should protect the weak, this means strong men and strong women both owe protection... not scorn... to weak men. Yet your entire post seems to be an attempt to use evolutionary psychology to rationalize your own contempt of the un-Chadly.

In your estimation, is it a problem that the vast majority of all security guards, police officers and military combat roles are men, assuming these are voluntary?

No, its not a problem per se. But to the extent men are indoctrinated with the idea that their highest duty is risking their lives in service to something greater than themselves, in physical suffering and exertion for the sake of others, in serving women and children, and that any man who doesn't or can't do this is a pathetic pussy that deserves to be held in contempt... well these are not good ideas.

Do you feel controlled?

Not in the way that a totalitarian state controls its citizens. But I know that cultural norms arise as incentive schemes, where respect and scorn are given as reward and punishment respectively, for behaviors which are (or at least once were) considered useful and detrimental to society respectively. That's a kind of control, and in that way yes, I do feel controlled. Of course I reject these norms anyway since I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I can tolerate the scorn of the multitudes.

Me personally? Because it has made my the quality of my life better. It has made me more self reliant, durable and independent. It has also put me in a position where I can give strong advice and help to others around me when they are in need, essentially strengthening the community around me. It makes me happy that I can do that. I'm grateful that I can take good care of myself.

So why shouldn't women do the same thing?

I can see where that is sometimes true, but I think you're grossly overstating it.

I hate to say this, but check your privilege. You didn't endure the absurd levels of bullying and degradation that I did. You don't know my suffering and you are in no position... and you have no right... to claim my suffering isn't significant or real or meaningful.

There is almost no "male privilege." But in this society there is a fuckton of "real-manhood privilege."

I have met countless men who're not physically fit, don't do any hard labor, have no masculine hobbies, can't fight, can't fix anything, aren't wealthy, etc, and they still have friends, girlfriends, wives, children, etc. Nobody gives them shit for this, and this is especially true when I visit big metropolitan areas, which I do pretty regularly.

Probably because in a technology-based economy traditional masculinity is becoming further and further outdated every day. But traditional gender roles are culturally ossified and haven't been updated to reflect the fact that it is enterprise, capital and knowledge-work that produces the most wealth. Traditional gender roles are thoroughly pre-modern.

Is there room for reformation and improvement in how we view masculinity? Abso-fucking-lutely.

So why are you complaining about men trying to do this?

"Equally human" is an abstract idea. It's certainly not quantifiable, unless you merely mean to point out we're the same species. But that obviously ignores the point, now doesn't it? We're not the same, therefore we're not truly equal in any real sense of the word.

That's just the invocation of a tautology. Of course we are all unique individuals. That doesn't mean we don't have a common humanity. If there is such a thing as "human nature" and "the human condition" and these things are the basis of morality, then it naturally follows morality must be gender-neutral. Traditional gender roles are not mere on-average-gender-tendencies, they're moralized demands placed on people on the basis of sex. If morality must be gender neutral, traditional gender roles (which, I stress, are not mere "the average man will typically be more X than the average woman" but rather "if you have a penis and you do not do X all the time to an extreme extent you are not a Real Man and deserve to be socially shunned") are invalid.

And if so, do you not envision an egalitarian world, where men and women truly make up 50% of every role, occupation, etc as potentially harmful and oppressive by stripping people's choices away altogether? You would essentially be disallowing men and women to be men and women, because you're operating under this false pretense that there's nothing innate about gender.

You're completely misunderstanding me.

First, I am not a Radical Feminist. I'm an MHRA who writes for the Honey Badger Brigade. Second, I think even without social reinforcement (i.e. rewards/punishments in the form of social esteem or social scorn), there won't be 50/50 splits in every role and that's fine. Third, I do believe there are almost certainly some natural/biological on-average differences between men and women at the population level in terms of their preferences and competencies.

And yes, I recognize the argument you made; its out of Hayek's Individualism and Economic Order. But Hayek applied it individualistically. Gender roles are collectivist, not individualist.

You can argue that civility must be practiced in how we treat those who do not follow this typical correlation, and that would be a righteous civil rights cause..

And that's the cause I, the MHRM, and presumably the writer of the originally-posted rant are after. Why should men who, whether habitually or just occasionally, fail to measure up to "Real Manhood" be scorned and humiliated? Again, you need to accept that scorn, humiliation and victimization are the things that occur to men who fail to meet those social standards.

it would be nothing short of misguided and authoritarian to attempt to rid society of the notion of gender.

That's not what I'm trying to do. Although I do think a lot of things in our society are arbitrarily connected with gender.

But as far as our personal feelings and perspective towards a given individual, it would be asinine to hold women to the same standard as men when it comes to being a construction worker, for instance. Whereas if a woman couldn't hack it in that job, we'd find no fault in their character, and that would be reasonable. But if a man couldn't hack it in that job, we'd at least have a few questions before we determined whether he reasonably couldn't or simply refused to hack it. Do you find that immoral or unreasonable?

Immoral? No. Unreasonable? Yes. Because you're boiling things down to just "man" or "woman" as the only variable, when in reality people are individuals that vary. If the man who failed to hack it as a construction worker was a skinny nerdy type, it would make sense construction work isn't what he's good at.

I feel like we're really getting into some deep philosophical arguments about the epistemological underpinnings of every concept we're bringing up. Do we even know if we agree on what morality is? Do you subscribe to utilitarianism? Are you a pragmatist?

I'm pretty much an individualist-egoist, morally. I'd say my position on ethics is basically Ayn Rand's.

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Just because the average man is stronger than the average woman does not imply that all men have a duty to protect and provide for all women.

But that's a straw man that you've made up. You're introducing an absolute where it isn't merited. Nobody said all men, nobody said all women. But that is beside the point of whether or not there will be social memes about opening jars, or grabbing a weapon to check out a noise in the house.

this means strong men and strong women both owe protection... not scorn... to weak men.

This happens every day. I think you're having a hard time drawing a line between genuine contempt, disapproval, disappointment, and exhortation. You're kind of just conflating all of these attitudes together as if they are equally oppressive. In doing so, you're failing to acknowledge the usefulness of encouraging masculinity due to the benefits that it can bestow upon people.

But to the extent men are indoctrinated with the idea that their highest duty is risking their lives in service to something greater than themselves, in physical suffering and exertion for the sake of others, in serving women and children, and that any man who doesn't or can't do this is a pathetic pussy that deserves to be held in contempt

Again, you're just making this non-sequitur leap where you fail to acknowledge the honor in someone taking pride in their willingness to exert themselves for a sense of duty, and then immediately after presume that any dutiful person towards those endeavors holds everyone who doesn't in contempt. Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but I'm really getting the impression that you're projecting your own trauma onto every point you make. Moreover, the exertion and suffering can be for one's own benefit. It's not necessarily for others.

Of course I reject these norms anyway since I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I can tolerate the scorn of the multitudes.

I think your thoughts on this are fundamentally flawed in that you assume social norms are a conscious incentive structure propagated out of self-interest with the purpose of control and coercion, rather than a subconscious and inadvertent incentive structure born out of a natural compulsion to feel attracted to certain things or ideas, because they happen to be useful. Most men and women alike are attracted to masculinity, for different reasons. You reject the notion, and so you find yourself like people often do, in a position where they're ridiculed for being different.

So why shouldn't women do the same thing?

Many should, many do. But by and large, they're really not cut out for it.

I hate to say this, but check your privilege. You didn't endure the absurd levels of bullying and degradation that I did. You don't know my suffering and you are in no position... and you have no right... to claim my suffering isn't significant or real or meaningful.

Check your emotional reactions. I very clearly said that it is sometimes true that men experience harsh treatment for not being masculine. What I meant was that I believe you're overstating the prevalence of the kinds of harsh treatment, which by the sound of it in your case, comes across as quite exceptional and particularly harsh. I then went on to give my examples. Our experiences are both anecdotal, obviously.

There is almost no "male privilege." But in this society there is a fuckton of "real-manhood privilege."

Oh, is there now? Funny how people who don't want to associate with a particular thing, tend to ascribe notions of privilege to those things, meanwhile disavowing any notion of privilege to the things they do want to associate with. Intersectionality is a funny thing.

Probably because in a technology-based economy traditional masculinity is becoming further and further outdated every day. But traditional gender roles are culturally ossified and haven't been updated to reflect the fact that it is enterprise, capital and knowledge-work that produces the most wealth. Traditional gender roles are thoroughly pre-modern.

I would agree that traditional gender roles in the domestic sense, are thoroughly pre-modern in their conception. I would however disagree that technology in the modern era is making masculinity obsolete, as it certainly hasn't made it irrelevant, as someone like James Damore has recently become infamous for politely and rationally pointing out. Again, the biological basis for this phenomena is being consistently disregarded I feel, in much of what you're writing. You seem to again echo the feminist ideology, in this axiom that all expression of gender is merely performative in the conscious sense. You seem to think that people in general, man or woman, have far more agency in both what they're attracted to and how they behave, than they actually do. You seem to believe in freewill.

If there is such a thing as "human nature" and "the human condition" and these things are the basis of morality, then it naturally follows morality must be gender-neutral.

You're ignoring that there is divergence and nuance within "human nature" and the "human condition". I'm not invoking a tautology, I'm refuting the claim of equality in our conscious experiences as humans. You used that word. I'm simply not granting you the rhetoric that commonality and equality are synonymous or interchangeable here. "Equally human" is a rather quaint but meaningless thing to say.

And yes, I recognize the argument you made; its out of Hayek's Individualism and Economic Order. But Hayek applied it individualistically. Gender roles are collectivist, not individualist.

Glad to see a fellow fan of the Austrian school. But gender roles cannot be simply written off as wholly collectivist, because gender expression is individualist. Again, you're hanging your hat on this idea that gender is in itself a coercive, conscious form of social control, rather than an emergent social organization known the world over and predicated on individuals expressing gender freely as individuals. Sex and gender is one of the most highly correlated scientific phenomena known to man. You cannot reasonably make an argument that it's merely some quasi-political imposition. And furthermore, as much of a fan as I am of libertarian thinkers, collectivism cannot always be regarded as a pejorative. The modicum of civility and decency you spoke of earlier, is collectivist. Manners and courtesy is collectivist. We are a social species at the end of the day. Solitude is a punishment for most.

Why should men who, whether habitually or just occasionally, fail to measure up to "Real Manhood" be scorned and humiliated?

I'm not saying they should necessarily. We're presuming that his situation had anything to do with gender roles. From what I read, his only expressed complaint was having to work to pay bills. And as a 4chan poster who uses Spongebob Squarepants memes to emote his feelings, he's likely a young man in his 20s. We really don't know though. You're keen on the conjecture that because he was told by a therapist to "man up", that he must be experiencing coercion to fulfill a traditional gender role. I'm more keen on the conjecture that he's incapable of finding happiness, because he's mired in stagnation due to his indulgence in the feeling of self-pity, and his therapist is suggesting that he snap out of that so that he can begin a process of recovery from whatever is bothering him. Who knows?

Again, you need to accept that scorn, humiliation and victimization are the things that occur to men who fail to meet those social standards.

I am accepting of that. That has no bearing on my position that it is not inherently and necessarily immoral to suggest that someone "man up".

If the man who failed to hack it as a construction worker was a skinny nerdy type, it would make sense construction work isn't what he's good at.

So by the same token, would it be unreasonable for me to doubt the abilities of a man because he looked "too nerdy or too skinny" for the job? We're essentially getting into a discussion of profiling and I feel you're not being reasonable in its utility and logical function. You can always invoke some soft-hearted appeal to fairness to the point of absurdity when talking about profiling. As an interesting aside though, I was a scrawny little kid when I started my career. Now I'm stronger than most people you'll ever meet. That story in itself is almost physically impossible for a woman, hence the logical basis for profiling in such a way.

I'm pretty much an individualist-egoist, morally. I'd say my position on ethics is basically Ayn Rand's.

As a person so heavily influenced by anarchist philosophy, I'm genuinely surprised that you don't have more admiration for the utility of masculinity. What could be more masculine than absolute individualism? Also, without going off on a tangent, I think that's precisely why those ideas are not more popular in mainstream society. They're too masculine and therefore a hard sell. I digress.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 1 Our conversation is being split up into multiple streams. This makes things complicated. Maybe you should feel welcome to take our disagreements to PM, but I'll give you some answers here.

But that's a straw man that you've made up. You're introducing an absolute where it isn't merited. Nobody said all men, nobody said all women. But that is beside the point of whether or not there will be social memes about opening jars, or grabbing a weapon to check out a noise in the house.

Those social memes only exist because of underlying social expectations which yes, speak in terms of all men and all women. You can point out that you personally wouldn't engage in collectivist reasoning about gender, but you don't determine the social expectations. Saying "but I don't think like that" doesn't mean that these social expectations don't exist.

In doing so, you're failing to acknowledge the usefulness of encouraging masculinity due to the benefits that it can bestow upon people.

To the extent that "masculinity" benefits people... why not just say these traits are not "masculine" but rather "virtuous" or "prudent"? If its helpful for women to have these traits, why should they be cast as the property of one gender?

I think your thoughts on this are fundamentally flawed in that you assume social norms are a conscious incentive structure propagated out of self-interest with the purpose of control and coercion,

That's a misinterpretation. My argument is that the gender roles (i.e. society's prescriptive demands based on sex) are culturally ossified incentive structures which made sense once, and were useful on a social level (not self-interest but collective/tribal interest), but no longer are useful. The incentive structure is often propagated tacitly and not in a fully-knowing, fully-considered manner.

rather than a subconscious and inadvertent incentive structure born out of a natural compulsion to feel attracted to certain things or ideas, because they happen to be useful.

And again, this doesn't justify how society intensely polices, regulates, and shames people. If gender roles were natural, shaming the gender-noncompliant would not be necessary.

So why shouldn't women do the same thing?

Many should, many do. But by and large, they're really not cut out for it.

Pick one. Either "many do" or "by and large, they're really not cut out for it."

What I meant was that I believe you're overstating the prevalence of the kinds of harsh treatment, which by the sound of it in your case, comes across as quite exceptional and particularly harsh.

And I believe you're greatly understating that prevalence. And I'm not merely going by my experiences but by the many experiences I've encountered here on /r/MensRights, including experiences like those of the OP and those in other threads. Again, you may need to consider the possibility that it is your experiences which are uncommon or atypical.

Oh, is there now?

Yes. Men whom are normatively masculine get treated more favorably than men whom are not. Women whom are conventionally attractive get treated more favorably than women whom are not. There are "privileged" statuses (i.e. statuses which come with relatively favorable treatment compared to the treatment received by those without the status). This isn't particularly controversial.

Funny how people who don't want to associate with a particular thing, tend to ascribe notions of privilege to those things, meanwhile disavowing any notion of privilege to the things they do want to associate with.

Okay, well why not tell me what "privileges" I get on account of being a gender nonconforming male? I see none. At best, I might be less likely to be thought of a "creeper" at a bar because the women automatically assume I'm gay (to be fair that's half-true given I'm bisexual) but I don't see very much privilege here. And for the record, don't say college admissions; I did not tick the "do you identify as LGBT" box on the form since I refuse to be an affirmative action beneficiary.

I would agree that traditional gender roles in the domestic sense, are thoroughly pre-modern in their conception. I would however disagree that technology in the modern era is making masculinity obsolete, as it certainly hasn't made it irrelevant, as someone like James Damore has recently become infamous for politely and rationally pointing out.

Now you're conflating. You're conflating "the typical man is on average different to the typical woman" - which is correct - with normative prescriptions society issues to individuals on the basis of sex. It is one thing to say the average woman is probably less likely to naturally be inclined towards coding than the average man. It is another thing entirely to say that a man should want to code and is a "lesser man" if he doesn't want to code.

Oh, and for the record, we can talk about average men and average women, but software engineers are outliers even relative to the male sex. James Damore, Bill Gates, and scientists like Dr Matt Taylor, are not seen as pussy-crushing alpha males. Indeed, the "nerdy" man is typically seen as an inferior, "not-real-man."

Again, the biological basis for this phenomena is being consistently disregarded I feel, in much of what you're writing.

Which phenomenon are we talking about here? I agree there is at least some biological basis for men on average having different inclinations/preferences/talents/tastes/proficiencies/etc. to women on average. On this we agree.

But the phenomena I am trying to address is that society doesn't merely say that "the average man is more likely to be more X/Y/Z than the average woman" but rather "all men must be very X/Y/Z at all times otherwise they deserve to be treated like shit". How can this latter phenomenon be biologically based, and even if it is why is this phenomenon not something we should use our reason and higher faculties to override/stamp out/mitigate as much as possible?

You seem to believe in freewill.

Yes, I do. Without free will there is no individual responsibility. Indeed, you're the one defending the idea that its okay to demand others "man up" so please tell me, if there is no free will and people just act out biological programming, what use is there trying to socially punish the deviant through demanding they "man up"? Aren't they also just acting out their biological programming?

I'm refuting the claim of equality in our conscious experiences as humans.

I never implied everyone experiences the exact same things. We're all unique. But that doesn't mean we don't have commonalities or that there are no patterns.

Glad to see a fellow fan of the Austrian school.

Ditto.

But gender roles cannot be simply written off as wholly collectivist, because gender expression is individualist.

But individuals who's gender expression deviates from the norm are the recipients of humiliation, shaming and other forms of social punishment. How is that not collectivist? Trying to crush the atypical individual and force them back into the norm is collectivist.

rather than an emergent social organization known the world over and predicated on individuals expressing gender freely as individuals.

Again, you're conflating gender typicalities (which I have already accepted are natural) and gender roles/norms/social-demands.

You cannot reasonably make an argument that it's merely some quasi-political imposition.

You mean just the natural inclinations? Or the elaborate structure of social norms/rules/rewards/punishments? Because the former is by definition not a quasi-political imposition, but the latter by definition is ("quasi-political" isn't the term I used but I think we know what I'm talking about here).

And furthermore, as much of a fan as I am of libertarian thinkers, collectivism cannot always be regarded as a pejorative. The modicum of civility and decency you spoke of earlier, is collectivist. Manners and courtesy is collectivist.

I'm not sure what you mean here. As I see it, courtesy, decency, the idea of a default modicum of respect for one's fellow human being, is perfectly individualistic as it is predicated on the idea of each individual human being having value/potential value and thus being worthy of having that acknowledged. That doesn't strike me as collectivist.

So by the same token, would it be unreasonable for me to doubt the abilities of a man because he looked "too nerdy or too skinny" for the job?

It wouldn't be unreasonable. It was an inference made on an obviously apparent trait evidenced in the person's appearance. As long as you don't a priori rule out the possibility of being wrong you're not being unreasonable.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 2

As a person so heavily influenced by anarchist philosophy, I'm genuinely surprised that you don't have more admiration for the utility of masculinity. What could be more masculine than absolute individualism?

Oh boy, this is the funny part... (No, I'm not trying to mock you).

Traditional masculinity is very anti-individualistic. Look at Jack Donovan for a good example... his theory of masculinity is false only in that he regards it as prescriptive (i.e. a correct statement about how men should be). As a descriptive theory, it is a remarkably correct summary of traditional masculinity.

Let us look at some of the icons of traditional masculinity. Team sports (putting team above individual, collectivist). The military (putting the group above the individual, collectivist). Both of the 20th century totalitarian ideologies (fascism and Marxism) embodied certain kinds of hypermasculinity, with Marxism venerating working class manhood and fascism venerating militaristic tribalistic machismo. Classical liberalism, meanwhile, was generally pacifisitic and wanted trade, material enrichment, knowledge and scholarship... things scorned as nerdy, weak and Jewish.

And that's the crux of things really... traditional masculinity, which as Donovan states is collective and hierarchical... doesn't fit well with the enlightenment-individualistic mentality now does it? Traditional masculinity is not coldly rational or logical but rather is totally okay with hot-button emotionalism, and those "men of the mind" (to borrow Rand's phrase) are these days bullied for being too into thinking/science/philosophy and not sufficiently into sports. The bullying of nerdy men as "lesser men" makes it pretty clear where traditional masculinity's sympathies lie, in my view; the reason/individualism/enlightenment axis... the Apollonian if you will.... doesn't square well with the Dionysian, tribalistic/collectivistic/volcanic passions of traditional machoness.

I should add if you find this symbolic logic confronting you may wish to take a look at my piece critiquing Camille Paglia, which I also had published at the Honey Badger Brigade.

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So men should never vent? Men should never have space to be outraged or angry? Men should never be able to get things off their chest in the way that suits them as individuals? The fact that men are capable of being victimized should never be acknowledged?

Straw man. Never said that. I think anger is a place you visit briefly, not where you build a home. I also don't think the OP is necessarily a victimized man. I've been involved with a lot of people in addiction counseling and psychological therapy, and women are told just as much as men to get their shit together. It basically boils down to a two-part therapy. First, sit and talk about your problems (i.e. get it off your chest). Second, set tangible and realistic goals to both alleviate stressors and maximize potential for happiness and success (i.e. getting shit done.) People love the first part. Everyone can bitch and moan about their life. People struggle with the second part, which is the part where you tell men and women alike, to "man up" and do the work required to get through their issues. This is what I'm talking about. I think it's fair to have complaints about the inequities of being assigned a gender role, within reason. I don't think it's fair or productive to tell people it's wrong to exhort people, men included, to get a handle on their problems and achieve things. Encouraging people to respond, to adapt, to overcome, to succeed, and to triumph is not an immoral thing to do, just because it hurts some people's feelings and they don't want to hear it. In fact, I think women could stand to hear more of that masculine exhortation. You can't just do the first part and then ignore the second because "feelings".

Why do we need to construct elaborate systems of social shaming, humiliation, pressure and compulsion to make people follow these tendencies if these tendencies are natural in the first place?

I think you're making another leap in logic, where you are presuming that we've constructed this system, rather than giving credence to the idea that we are instinctively repulsed on a visceral level, by certain behaviors and ideas. Look up some of Johnathan Haidt's work on this. He has some really interesting theories on the psychological role of disgust in societies. It sounds to me like you're just placing way too much weight on this presumption that everything in society is orchestrated with expressed intent of control, and not nearly enough that behavior is emergent, innate and often subconscious.

Please provide a solution to the Problem Of Universals which proves that abstractions like "masculinity" and "femininity" exist entirely independently of the human consciousness, then.

I could ask that you do the same for what it means to be "equally human". But in any event, I'm not making an epistemological argument that gender exists objectively in the universe outside the mind. I also don't think I have to make that claim, to justify the reasoning that there is something useful about the terms in that there are such transcendent properties and correlations involved with it. It's an elephant in the room.

Which would be fine if "masculinity" were a purely descriptive label. The problem is that it has historically been a prescriptive concept. It says that these traits are not merely relatively common amongst males relative to females, but that all males must rigidly display a very large amount of all these traits at all times and that any male who fails to do so deserves to be shunned and cast out.

It is at times descriptive and at times prescriptive. And again, I think you're being overly dramatic with this idea that if you're not the ubermensch at every waking moment of every day, that you get cast out by society. That's just absurd.

Again that's a misunderstanding of what my position actually is.

Does it bother you at all that I'm genuinely finding it hard to make a distinction here? You're saying masculinity is an illegitimate, oppressive social construct. How is that not at least part of feminist ideology? The only place I see you deviate, is that you think it's being orchestrated by women to control men, whereas feminists think it's orchestrated by men to subjugate women. I certainly don't mean to misrepresent your position though, so I'm all ears. Surely you see the similarities, no?

Perhaps the only reason you don't see gender roles as "imposed arbitrarily as an illegitimate social construct" is because apparently these roles don't inflict costs upon you which you can't or won't pay. But don't be solipsistic and presume that all men share your experiences.

On the contrary, I'm not being solipsistic in the slightest. I'm merely acknowledging that masculinity is not a conspiracy against men. It's an emergent biological truth; one which encompasses some of our most violent flaws, as well as some of our greatest qualities and achievements as a species. And let me be clear, there are plenty of fucked up stories about unguided, irrational masculinity which I sympathize with. The tyrannical father is a very real archetype to me, for example. You're consistently conflating my criticism of "whiny bullshit" with every legitimate complaint men might have about their lives, which I can't correct you enough on at this point.

I mean if you want to trumpet about the glory days of some macho past where men were men and men were kings (let us ignore the inconvenient fact that almost all men, historically, were some kind of serf) feel free to go off and be a Neomasculinist with Roosh V or Jack Donovan. I however prefer to remain a Men's Human Rights Advocate along with Warren Farrell.

That's not what's happening here. I don't subscribe to Roosh or Donovan, though I'm familiar with some of their writing. I probably agree with them on some things, no doubt. But I tend to find things I agree with from a lot of people, whom I don't agree with about everything. Warren Farrell I agree with about a lot of things. None of that speaks to whether I am a true egalitarian. I'm simply not. I see that as an inherently oppressive idea at its worst, and a departure from a pragmatic approach to human survival and social organization at best. We probably agree on more than what can be inferred from this conversation we're having. All I meant to state from the onset is that:

1.) Telling someone to "man up" is not inherently immoral or manipulative. It's entirely contextual.

2.) Masculinity is not a consciously engineered conspiracy against men.

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

Straw man. Never said that. I think anger is a place you visit briefly, not where you build a home.

The originally posted rant was one man getting something off his chest. You have no evidence that suggests he characteristically rants and raves like this and cries constantly. Why did you presume this one venting rant was indicative of his character as a whole?

I also don't think the OP is necessarily a victimized man.

You're not really in a position to make that judgment, and you know it.

It basically boils down to a two-part therapy. First, sit and talk about your problems (i.e. get it off your chest). Second, set tangible and realistic goals to both alleviate stressors and maximize potential for happiness and success (i.e. getting shit done.) People love the first part. Everyone can bitch and moan about their life. People struggle with the second part, which is the part where you tell men and women alike, to "man up" and do the work required to get through their issues. This is what I'm talking about.

Okay. So why aren't you applying this gender-neutrally? Because that sounds like a gender-neutral process.

In fact, I think women could stand to hear more of that masculine exhortation.

See above. Your argument here sounds completely gender-neutral. So why this special contempt for males who make like... one all-caps rant when they need to let off steam?

I think you're making another leap in logic, where you are presuming that we've constructed this system, rather than giving credence to the idea that we are instinctively repulsed on a visceral level, by certain behaviors and ideas.

We also have a duty, as rational animals, to screen our automatic/subconscious/instinctive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it reactions/dislikes/hatreds and evaluate if those are rational and productive behaviors/responses. If not, we need to work against them.

Also you seem to think that venting or craving for sympathy or commiseration or validation is not instinctual or natural, because you seem more or less willing to condemn that unreservedly. But if it is natural, then by your logic space needs to be made for it no?

Look up some of Johnathan Haidt's work on this. He has some really interesting theories on the psychological role of disgust in societies.

I'm familiar with Haidt's work. The disgust moral foundation is related to things that are perceived as contaminants/health risks if I remember correctly.

It sounds to me like you're just placing way too much weight on this presumption that everything in society is orchestrated with expressed intent of control

I never said it was necessarily intentional. My opinion is that the gender roles were "designed" as social technologies to encourage "socially useful" behavior back in the pre-civilizational past for the most part. They were encoded into our traditions (see the warrior gods and mother goddesses Riane Eisler goes on about) and our ideals and stories blah blah blah. The thing is they just got passed down... due to custom and tradition... and rarely were subject to conscious examination/questioning for quite some time. Now to be fair, I think these traditions were necessary for their time and only relatively recently (historically speaking) have we now reached a situation where we can afford to question them.

and not nearly enough that behavior is emergent, innate and often subconscious.

I try to make the smallest number of assumptions about human nature that are necessary. My theory about gender roles is an economically reductionist one, similar to Warren Farrell's. For more detail read this piece of mine: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2014/02/27/summa-genderratica-the-anatomy-of-the-gender-system/

Does it bother you at all that I'm genuinely finding it hard to make a distinction here? You're saying masculinity is an illegitimate, oppressive social construct. How is that not at least part of feminist ideology? The only place I see you deviate, is that you think it's being orchestrated by women to control men, whereas feminists think it's orchestrated by men to subjugate women. I certainly don't mean to misrepresent your position though, so I'm all ears. Surely you see the similarities, no?

Actually, I consider both traditional masculinity and traditional femininity to be controlling of both men and women respectively, as social technologies which reward/punish "useful"/"detrimental" (to society) behaviors respectively. I don't think any one sex crafted the gender roles in an attempt to control the other sex. I think the traditional gender roles gave certain kinds of power and control over the other sex to each sex.

But again, I need to be clear, by "masculinity" and "femininity" I'm not talking about gender tendencies/typicalities. Yes, some traits are more common/typical in one sex than the other sex and vice versa.

I'm talking about society's demands/expectations placed on each sex. Call these "gender roles" if you like but the point is our culture doesn't merely say "the average male is more likely to exhibit more x/y/z than the average female". Rather it is very strictly prescriptive of what a "real man" must be like and punishes deviance with social emasculation. You may not think this is so, but your complaining that the OP and some of the men here "sound pathetic" is frankly proof that this punishment exists. Maybe you were spared the worst because you are naturally gender-compliant, but if that's true you need to stop projecting your experiences onto others.

Now, do I think natural tendencies or inclinations that vary on average at the population level are illegitimate? No, I think they're real. What I think is illegitimate is the tying of one's "real manhood" (one's very identity) and worth as a human being to social compliance/conformity with a gender role that is destructive of individuality and neglectful of human variation and completely technologically outdated. Its an obsolete social technology which is holding us all back.

I'm merely acknowledging that masculinity is not a conspiracy against men.

Something doesn't have to be a conscious conspiracy in order to be unjustly controlling. A code of values reinforced by tradition and social reward/punishment is often far more impactful than a consciously-engaged-in scheme.

It's an emergent biological truth; one which encompasses some of our most violent flaws, as well as some of our greatest qualities and achievements as a species.

You're conflating tendencies/typicalities with gender roles/social prescriptions here. I agree the former exist and they're totally okay, but its the latter I take issue with.

On the contrary, I'm not being solipsistic in the slightest...And let me be clear, there are plenty of fucked up stories about unguided, irrational masculinity which I sympathize with. The tyrannical father is a very real archetype to me, for example.

No offense but that kind of is slightly solipsistic (even though I am grateful you understand the terrible reality of tyrant fathers... something which isn't an easy sell in men's rights circles given how important the cause of fathers rights is). You consider the tyrannical father a very real problem because you have (I hate to be presumptuous) probably experienced it yourself (and you have my condolences). Yet you keep dismissing other problems that other men have with traditional masculinity as "whiny bullshit" and position yourself as the arbiter of what complaints are legitimate or not. Maybe you could stand to perhaps be a little bit more open about how men-who-aren't-yourself or men-who-are-unlike-yourself experience society's expectations of men?

None of that speaks to whether I am a true egalitarian. I'm simply not. I see that as an inherently oppressive idea at its worst, and a departure from a pragmatic approach to human survival and social organization at best.

I presume by "true egalitarian" you mean the Radical Feminist position that there is no such thing as gender and that men and women are psychologically identical by nature with all differences being 100% due to conditioning, correct?

Well I don't share that position. I reject the idea of objectively real universals in the first place, so I guess by implication I reject the idea of an objective 'masculinity' and 'femininity'. That said I think there are some on-average differences between men and women. I subscribe to a bio-social interactionist position; nurture and nature both contribute. However I think the evidence makes it clear gender identity seems to be innate or close to it.

Also, "pragmatic approach to human survival and social organization"... why would gender roles suited to a premodern world be pragmatic in high modernity?

All I meant to state from the onset is that:

1.) Telling someone to "man up" is not inherently immoral or manipulative. It's entirely contextual.

Why say "man up" then? After all you think women need to be told this more often, so why not say a gender-neutral alternative like "spine up"? After all, people should have a spine.

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay. So why aren't you applying this gender-neutrally? Because that sounds like a gender-neutral process.

It is a gender neutral process insofar as who it applies to. But women are encouraged to take charge of their lives, practice discipline and assert dominance over their situations. These are all masculine things that are being asked of them, no matter what manner of semantic guise you wish to use. Whether someone tells you to "man up", or "you're not little miss princess", or "quit acting like a diva/drama queen", etc. All of these things are asking that you stray from the feminine disposition of non-confrontation you're currently in, and to answer a call of duty to yourself, and potentially others, to confront your problems and be accountable. That is not oppressive. On the contrary, it can be the most liberating thing a person has ever experienced. Discipline equals freedom, as Aristotle once said.

Your argument here sounds completely gender-neutral. So why this special contempt for males who make like... one all-caps rant when they need to let off steam?

You're projecting this contempt thing again. I don't have contempt for that person. And you're acting coy. He didn't just post one all-caps rant to let off steam. He said he's been to multiple therapy sessions, spending hours blowing off steam, and his therapist is likely telling him it's time to move on from that stage. His response? "Why? So I can pay bills?" It's got juvenile behavior written all over it. But again, we're both operating on conjecture here.

We also have a duty, as rational animals, to screen our automatic/subconscious/instinctive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it reactions/dislikes/hatreds and evaluate if those are rational and productive behaviors/responses. If not, we need to work against them.

Given the right context, it is entirely rational and productive to suggest that a person snap out of their indulgence for sorrow so that they may be afforded the opportunity to confront their issues.

Also you seem to think that venting or craving for sympathy or commiseration or validation is not instinctual or natural, because you seem more or less willing to condemn that unreservedly. But if it is natural, then by your logic space needs to be made for it no?

My argument is not that anything that is natural needs to be tolerated, condoned or encouraged. Violence is natural, but there's obviously a lot of context involved in its moral standing. At the end of the day, a therapist's job is not to merely sit there and listen to you ramble on endlessly about your problems. They're there to get you to speak out loud, so that you think out loud, so that you may have one or many epiphanies, but most importantly they're there to challenge the shit flying out of your mouth, as it is often the case that damaged or hurt people delude themselves in an endless web of bullshit, which is why they have such a hard time finding the happiness they seek. Humans are great at making excuses for themselves and finding ways not to deal with their problems. So yes, there is room for commiseration. But there is a point at which that is detrimental to healing. In some respects, it directly enables bad patterns of thought. At some point - better sooner, than later - it's time to stop the crying and get a hold of yourself. I find it very hard to believe that this guy walked into a therapist, counselor, psychologist or psychiatrist's office and they just told him to callously to "man up". That sounds like the typical bullshit you'd hear from someone looking to diffuse responsibility.

I'm familiar with Haidt's work. The disgust moral foundation is related to things that are perceived as contaminants/health risks if I remember correctly.

Correct. I think that plays heavily into everything at work here in regards to the ridicule or contempt men feel for not living up to a standard of masculinity. But as you'll note, Haidt makes it clear that we apparently need some of that to keep order in our society. That is the reason it has developed through our survived evolution.

The thing is they just got passed down... due to custom and tradition... and rarely were subject to conscious examination/questioning for quite some time. Now to be fair, I think these traditions were necessary for their time and only relatively recently (historically speaking) have we now reached a situation where we can afford to question them.

This all sounds like things I can agree with as far as questioning them goes, up until you and I start getting into the details, and it quickly becomes apparent that you seem to argue with me at every turn that they're ever beneficial to society. You basically use "gender roles" as a pejorative in every situation, yet claim you only mean to "question". That strikes me as disingenuous. You're clearly repudiating them outright.

For more detail read this piece of mine:

Okay, so upon reading this well thought out and well written essay, here are my thoughts:

Femininity is mostly understood as innate to female biology, as an immanent essence, whilst masculinity is mostly understood as an ideal to aspire to, a “form” which one “participates in” in order to gain an identity.

I agree with your general idea, but femininity is an expression of "form" just as much as masculinity, and has its own set of hierarchical rules. This is obvious. It just so happens that one is clearly harder to achieve.

Men are seen as actors, and women are seen as acted upon. This is the traditional subject-object dichotomy.

This is what a feminist would say. This is absolute nonsense serving, intentionally or not, to portray women as inherent victims. This is precisely why the onus is always placed on men to make all corrections and to police all behavior, because of this fairy tale that women aren't moral actors that are constantly imposing on and affecting their environment. I would surmise the only reason you view the male as subject, and the female as object, is because you're a male speaking from your point of view. As it turns out, by way of your very own "agency by proxy" argument, women could just as easily be the subjects, and males the objects in this arrangement. This is purely a matter of perspective.

Male maturity is not seen as guaranteed, but rather something proven/earned. Men do, women are, because manhood is about doing and womanhood just “is”.

I think you're absolutely correct about this at a rudimentary, base level understanding of our valuation of the two sexes. But as far as the performative duties of gender roles, and certainly the individualistic nuances of gender expression, you're oversimplifying women's duties and typical expressions. A "good woman" as you put it, does not merely give birth and then is free to be delinquent. Women are not innately gender compliant.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is a gender neutral process insofar as who it applies to. But women are encouraged to take charge of their lives, practice discipline and assert dominance over their situations. These are all masculine things that are being asked of them, no matter what manner of semantic guise you wish to use.

So you're now saying that these traits are not merely more common in men than women but that these traits are essentially masculine in the sense of either Aristotelian or Platonic Essentialism.

In order to prove this, you need to provide an essentialist solution to the Problem Of Universals. You stated before that you're a fan of the Austrian School, however if you provide an essentialist solution to the Problem Of Universals, you will inherently disprove Economic Subjectivism and thus the entire Austrian School of Economics. So what's it going to be? Gender essentialism or economic subjectivism? Because I don't see how it is possible to have both.

You're projecting this contempt thing again. I don't have contempt for that person.

But your entire involvement in this thread has been to say that the person in the original post is being pathetic and needs to man up. How is that not a form of contempt?

Given the right context, it is entirely rational and productive to suggest that a person snap out of their indulgence for sorrow so that they may be afforded the opportunity to confront their issues.

I agree entirely. But again, I don't see why this isn't just a gender-neutral conception of virtue.

Humans are great at making excuses for themselves and finding ways not to deal with their problems. So yes, there is room for commiseration. But there is a point at which that is detrimental to healing. In some respects, it directly enables bad patterns of thought. At some point - better sooner, than later - it's time to stop the crying and get a hold of yourself.

See above. I agree, but I don't see what this has to do with "manning up".

Correct. I think that plays heavily into everything at work here in regards to the ridicule or contempt men feel for not living up to a standard of masculinity. But as you'll note, Haidt makes it clear that we apparently need some of that to keep order in our society.

But the disgust foundation is related to contaminants entering the body. How does, say, a guy wearing nail polish represent a threat of any contaminant entering the body? How does a guy not being good at sport represent the threat of a contaminant entering the body? I mean, I can understand how the disgust foundation may create distaste for sodomy (since anus = poo = icky, diseased and filthy), but "he's not got at beating people up in the playground" =/= "he represents a disease vector and therefore ICK."

Also, the fact we need some disgust to preserve our society doesn't mean that we need to specifically feel disgust towards gender-atypical persons or persecute them in order to preserve our society.

This all sounds like things I can agree with as far as questioning them goes, up until you and I start getting into the details, and it quickly becomes apparent that you seem to argue with me at every turn that they're ever beneficial to society. You basically use "gender roles" as a pejorative in every situation, yet claim you only mean to "question". That strikes me as disingenuous. You're clearly repudiating them outright.

Well I happen to think it is wrong to demand people live up to sex-specific moral ideals. I believe that what is good/virtuous for the goose is good/virtuous for the gander. Gender roles (which as I have said before are a distinct phenomenon from biological typicalities) constitute moral relativism on the basis of sex.

I agree with your general idea, but femininity is an expression of "form" just as much as masculinity, and has its own set of hierarchical rules. This is obvious. It just so happens that one is clearly harder to achieve.

The distinction is that a woman's "woman-ness" isn't capable of being socially revoked. Her "woman-ness" is seen as innate to her biology, whereas a man's "real manhood" is not. The result is that whilst there are "better women/worse women" the "worse women" don't lose social acknowledgement of their status as "real women". "Real manhood" works differently, as this classic social psychology paper makes clear: http://thedadshow.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Precarious_Manhood.pdf

This is what a feminist would say.

Sometimes the feminists are not entirely wrong. I should also point out that my fellow Honey Badger Brigade participants have endorsed the same argument on several occasions.

This is absolute nonsense serving, intentionally or not, to portray women as inherent victims.

You're misreading me. What I am arguing is that traditional notions of gender see women as lacking in agency, whereas men are seen as possessing agency/responsibility. Feminism perpetuates this through treating men as villains and women as perpetual victims.

I would surmise the only reason you view the male as subject, and the female as object, is because you're a male speaking from your point of view.

Proof you misread me. I didn't say that the subject-object dichotomy is true. I said its how traditional notions of gender describe things. The subject-object dichotomy is in fact false.

[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As women are not seen as moral agents, they are not treated as subject to moral standards or as possessing capacity for great moral virtue (or vice).

This contradicts the very well put points you make later in regards to sexual dynamics and the PDS.

All in all, I agreed with a lot of what you said, but you deal in a lot of absolutes and your ideas are couched in a predisposition of males always drawing the short end of the stick. I see it as much closer to a mutually beneficial arrangement, which is why it's prevailed and persisted in a marketplace of ideas across vast distances and through various cultural barriers.

But again, I need to be clear, by "masculinity" and "femininity" I'm not talking about gender tendencies/typicalities. Yes, some traits are more common/typical in one sex than the other sex and vice versa.

The two are inexorable and one begets the other.

You may not think this is so, but your complaining that the OP and some of the men here "sound pathetic" is frankly proof that this punishment exists.

This is assuming that I would never call a woman's incessant whining pathetic. You'd be surprised the standard I hold most people to. I'm not one to coddle anyone, male or female. My point is that when it comes to an individual acting pathetically, your view of correcting the double standards experienced in our society regarding gender, seems to encourage men to act more like women rather than encourage women to act more like men. You obviously don't want a world that continues to propagate masculine virtues, because men would disproportionately be the natural targets of expectation, regardless of how egalitarian you hoped it would be. And that's exactly what I was getting at earlier, when I essentially said you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You think it's unfair that men have to aspire to a form, while in your view women don't have to do anything - which I disagree with - and so you're basically just saying, "I want men to be women too, and we can all do nothing together."

What I think is illegitimate is the tying of one's "real manhood" (one's very identity) and worth as a human being to social compliance/conformity with a gender role

If you really think it's that drastic, that people would literally regard you as a worthless human being for not being "man enough", then why do women love gay guys so much? And why is LGBT becoming more and more accepted into our society? Again, this is where I have to posit the idea that perhaps you're colored by your own experience.

A code of values reinforced by tradition and social reward/punishment

You're still perpetuating the notion that it's all reinforced by socially institutionalized and propagandized behavior, and completely leaving out the innate attractiveness to the ideas themselves.

You're conflating tendencies/typicalities with gender roles/social prescriptions here. I agree the former exist and they're totally okay, but its the latter I take issue with.

They're inseparable to a fundamental degree. The one begets the other. How do you think the arrangement ever came to be? This is another thing I keep trying to get at. You're not going to completely get rid of gender roles unless you completely get rid of gender expression in general. You say you don't want to do the latter, which I think makes it a fool's errand to try and do the former. You may feel oppressed by them, but so many others don't. How're you going to win this market over?

No offense but that kind of is slightly solipsistic (even though I am grateful you understand the terrible reality of tyrant fathers)

No, it wasn't solipsistic because I'm not talking about a personal experience with my father, I'm talking about the archetype in general of a dictatorial tyrant, which is masculine in nature. It was just an off the cuff example of masculinity gone wrong, and yet still a valid example of masculinity. Furthermore, it is an archetype which would persist even in the absence of gender roles.

Yet you keep dismissing other problems that other men have with traditional masculinity as "whiny bullshit"

You really don't have a frame of reference for how I would arbitrate what's legitimate or not, other than my very reasonable contention that "man up" is not necessarily something you only hear when "someone is trying to get you to act against your best interests". That was a factually incorrect, bullshit statement that appealed to emotion. You might be surprised to find yourself agreeing if I gave you some more examples of the ridiculous, often vindictive and resentful stuff I've seen written here. You keep portraying me as crass and uncaring, but the accusations are erroneous. I have a great capacity for empathy, but that does not mean I'm going to wholesale sympathize with everything I hear. And when I don't, it doesn't make me an adversary to anyone either. That whole mentality is feminine and conspiratorial. And to be frank, it's not fair to me and what I actually believe.

why would gender roles suited to a premodern world be pragmatic in high modernity?

I don't know where you live, what you do for a living or what kind of community you grew up in, but there's 7.6 billion other people on this planet. They don't all live in what you're describing as "high modernity", even within the western world. There is a certain level of affluence, technological convenience and financial security on which your argument is highly predicated, but which you're not paying lip service to. Perhaps your ideas are just ahead of their time. But anecdotally speaking, I grew up in a working class environment where gender roles and duties were very loosely and arbitrarily followed, and I knew a lot of fucked up kids with no guidance, no stable family unit, no examples, etc because of it. I'm not so quick to throw traditionalism out of the window now, as an adult that can look back on it. Your theory is, after all, in a theoretical vacuum. A lot of boys are craving masculine guidance. They're starved of it. There's some that would argue that that's a big reason why boys are failing the way the are. So perhaps it's you who is being solipsistic here.

Why say "man up" then? After all you think women need to be told this more often, so why not say a gender-neutral alternative like "spine up"? After all, people should have a spine.

Now you're just policing words where the thought and concept still remains. Who has the strongest backs by an enormous margin? Men. So even if I tell someone to "spine up", I'm still telling them to be masculine in that moment. And even if that therapist would've told him to "spine up", you don't think the thread would've still been coherent and relevant in this sub? You're being dishonest if you believe that, and you're obviously too smart for such naivete. Get real. It changes nothing about the idea, and you know it.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The two are inexorable and one begets the other.

By "the two" I presume you mean "gender typicalities (the fact that some traits are more common in one sex than the other)" and "gender roles (society's mandates that individuals exemplify their sex typicalities, and that those individuals whom do not exemplify said typicalities should be treated with scorn)", and your argument that if the former exist then the latter will be inevitable.

I disagree. The former has no necessary implication of the latter. The equation of atypical with immoral/wrong is not logical.

This is assuming that I would never call a woman's incessant whining pathetic. You'd be surprised the standard I hold most people to. I'm not one to coddle anyone, male or female.

Then why gender this standard in the first place? Why not have one standard for all people?

My point is that when it comes to an individual acting pathetically, your view of correcting the double standards experienced in our society regarding gender, seems to encourage men to act more like women rather than encourage women to act more like men.

My position is more nuanced than this to an extent. As I see it, men are burdened with the unrealistic expectation of hyperagency. Women are saddled with the presumption of hypoagency. A rational standard would be beneath the current male standards but above the current female standards, since we are neither hyperagents nor hypoagents... we are all agents.

If you really think it's that drastic, that people would literally regard you as a worthless human being for not being "man enough", then why do women love gay guys so much?

LOL, tons of women absolutely hate gay men with a passion, and the only gay men women like are the flamingly fabulous, toxically-feminine Regina-George-In-A-Male-Body Bitchy Queens. Radical Feminism was atrociously homophobic for the record.

And why is LGBT becoming more and more accepted into our society?

For one, not all LGBT people are male. My argument is that not-real-man males are seen as basically worthless, but the reason they are becoming more accepted is because they are not being valued as men. Hence why its only the bitchy-queen type of gay dude who women love... they see him not as a man but as an "honorary girl" basically.

They're inseparable to a fundamental degree. The one begets the other. How do you think the arrangement ever came to be?

That's what I try to explain in Summa Genderattica.

There is a certain level of affluence, technological convenience and financial security on which your argument is highly predicated, but which you're not paying lip service to.

I stated it in my previous post (and in the first section of Summa). Yes, my argument is very much post-enlightenment, post-industrial-revolution. I don't think this disproves anything.

Now you're just policing words where the thought and concept still remains. Who has the strongest backs by an enormous margin? Men. So even if I tell someone to "spine up", I'm still telling them to be masculine in that moment.

Again, you're relying on an epistemological essentialism. Women can be strong-willed and there are plenty of examples of women doing it. We shouldn't implicitly tell them they don't "have" to be tenacious or psychologically resilient to at least some degree (a reasonable degree obviously).

[–]v574v 165 points166 points167 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyBattts 89 points90 points91 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yep. No one wants to talk about it because we're all supposed to pretend that women are not human beings with agency but perfect angelic creatures who exert no influence on men or society (except if the influence is TOTALLY AWESOME) but it is primarily women that enforce the male gender role. They do this through both shaming techniques and sexual selection.

What Brown also discovered in the course of her research is that, contrary to her early assumptions, men's shame is not primarily inflicted by other men. Instead, it is the women in their lives who tend to be repelled when men show the chinks in their armor.

"Most women pledge allegiance to this idea that women can explore their emotions, break down, fall apart—and it's healthy," Brown said. "But guys are not allowed to fall apart." Ironically, she explained, men are often pressured to open up and talk about their feelings, and they are criticized for being emotionally walled-off; but if they get too real, they are met with revulsion. She recalled the first time she realized that she had been complicit in the shaming: "Holy Shit!" she said. "I am the patriarchy!"

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/messages-of-shame-are-organized-around-gender/275322/

"Manning up" is not always a bad thing depending on context. There is nothing positive about becoming an emotional mess and breaking down over trivialities. And some men do indeed need to demonstrate above average courage and strength to perform the dangerous jobs that keep civilization functioning (it would be nice if we would thank these men from time to time instead of accusing them of being oppressors).

When it becomes toxic is when it is used to exploit men and encourage them to do things that are not in their own bests interests or used as an excuse to continue placing women on a pedestal while ignoring male issues. Male feminists like the folks at R/MensLib are a perfect example of this (actual) "toxic masculinity."

[–]No_More_Candy 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dakewlguy 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyBattts 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Both sexes do it. However the experts claim that it is primarily women that enforce the male gender role. That is (or should be) stupidly obvious because females determine what sorts of male behaviors/traits will get men laid. If women rewarded eg sensitivity and knowledge then every man would be bawling his eyes out on streetcorners and going to the library rather than the gym.

I'm not blaming women for this, incidentally. It's just a fact of life. What I find objectionable is that feminists are currently urging boys to become more feminine. Once their voices break and the neoteny disappears so will the sympathy. Not only will they suffer romantically but they will be ill-prepared for life as the disposable sex.

Obviously a healthy balance can be reached, but that's something men can do on their own with the guidance of their fathers -- assuming the mother allows the child to even see the father (feminists oppose shared parenting). Fun fact: the majority of school shooters and male spree killers come from single mother homes or broken homes. Boys need men in their lives (including male teachers), not feminist indoctrination. "Toxic masculinity," to the extent that it even exists, is not caused by men but a lack of men.

[–]No_More_Candy 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any examples of the studies these experts did where they identified behaviors associated with enforcing male gender roles, and examined who exhibited them the most? Because this sounds like the kind of thing where both sides claim the other side does it, but neither has any proof that one side does it more. And in reality, they both point to the worst the other side has to offer and make those voices louder.

I actually agree with you about masculinity, but I think what you're talking about is going to change. Think for a moment about the history of the women's rights movement. For about a hundred years women have fought to be allowed to do things that were traditionally masculine. The entire time this was happening people claimed what you are claiming now about men. They claimed that it would make women unattractive, and that it would lead to unthinkable masculine behavior. Those images aren't satirical, people at the time were actually worried about women wearing pants. They didn't just think it was weird for women to wear pants, they thought it was morally wrong and degenerate behavior. And then women fought to do those things and perceptions changed. I think the same thing is happening now with masculine behavior. Or at least it could happen if we fight for it.

I think eventually we're going to look back at certain masculine norms of today the same way. Obviously not all of them, but certain ones are going to disappear and the people of the future will look at us like we were insane. When that happens, what you're talking about will no longer be true. It will be OK for men to be something other than the perfect masculine ideal.

When this happens you're going to see lots of changes in policy. For example, shelters for men will no longer be controversial because it will be OK for men to be weak. We're going to see an increase in men getting mental health counseling, a drop in suicides, and a huge increase in men feeling like it's OK to be primary caregivers for their children if they want to.

It's going to be hard. The women's rights movement took more than a century to get to where it is today. Men's rights might take that long as well. I hope not, but I'm prepared for it. It's going to be a long uphill struggle. If we want to help speed it up, we need to support the men who are fighting the fight today. Terry Crews is my favorite example right now, but there are many others. The future could be a lot brighter than we imagine.

[–]BillyBattts 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any examples of the studies these experts did where they identified behaviors associated with enforcing male gender roles, and examined who exhibited them the most?

No. But I cited a social scientist who studied the issue for ten years and that was her conclusion. You also have to ask yourself why, for example, a man will mock another man for being too feminine. Karen Straughan provided the analogy of walking on hands. If women found walking on hands attractive, men would all be walking around on their hands; they would also be mocking men who sucked at walking on their hands. Make sense?

I don't think men becoming more feminine will increase empathy toward them. It will simply increase revulsion toward them. The female gender role is more flexible because women have value (wombs) simply for existing. It doesn't make much difference if they want to "play" at being a man. Men have to earn value, and if men all decide to become stereotypically feminine civilization will collapse. Someone needs to keep the wolf from the door. Indeed the main reason (arguably) the masculine gender role is so brutally policed is that male strength is required to protect females. It's in our DNA.

The biggest problem is the empathy gap. But again I don't think it's necessary for men to become something they're not in order to solve or at least mitigate the problem. We need to educate people (especially women) about the problem. We have to start respecting men again. We have to change certain policies and laws. We have to acknowledge the importance of fathers. We have to acknowledge the sexes are different on average. We have to acknowledge that men suffer and that they may need different kinds of help than women. We have to acknowledge female privilege and discrimination against men.

Right now, the biggest obstacle to solving these problems is feminism. That needs to be acknowledged as well.

At the end of the day the gender roles haven't actually changed all that much. Feminists still embrace female hypoagency and damselling when it suits them. The main difference is that men are no longer respected for their contributions (instead they are maligned) -- while still being expected to sacrifice themselves for women. Women now have the privileges of both sexes but the responsibilities of neither. It's the worst of both worlds (interestingly, female happiness has been sharply decreasing over the past thirty years).

This is why I don't think feminism has ever moved us toward "gender equality."

[–]Arby01 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]wrekd1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

More often then not, when men do it they are trying to help you. Much like a coach would. Women tend to do it to shame, manipulate and control you. Smack talk among men is common and part of a never ending initiation process. Smack talk between the sexes, especially at work, needs to be carefully done. Cross a line too far and you may not return.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

More often then not, when men do it they are trying to help you. Much like a coach would.

Does that make it good? Or permissible? For that matter why should people act that way in the first place? That entire 'beat them down until they begin acting like a pack animal and trying to appease alpha-daddy-substitute' mindset may be necessary in certain situations, but in civilian life in the modern Western world can we justify it?

Smack talk among men is common and part of a never ending initiation process.

Again, why should this be justified? Considering how one of the biggest ways men are socially controlled and manipulated is the idea that one's "man card" is always provisional and able to be revoked at any time, doesn't the practice of "permanent hazing" effectively reflect/reinforce that idea meaning men can never have a non-precarious manhood?

[+]wrekd1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I am thankful for the ease that modern life allows. Necessities of food, water, shelter, and clothing are readily available. But in the back of my mind I know that we are cavemen, that society ebbs and flows, and that we could easily lose it all. It is the fate of all civilizations. At that time playing your role will be expected. Hopefully everyone will know how to play one. Or at least fake it till you make it.

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

But in the back of my mind I know that we are cavemen, that society ebbs and flows, and that we could easily lose it all. It is the fate of all civilizations.

I don't think its inevitable. And honestly I think that building a set of moral norms on the possibility of extremely unlikely hypotheticals is a bit of a waste.

At that time playing your role will be expected. Hopefully everyone will know how to play one. Or at least fake it till you make it.

If civilization collapsed tomorrow 80%+ of the human population is going to die. That's inevitable. Even if they all COULD be hypermacho badasses the fight over resources (and remember that pre-civilization uses resources very inefficiently) would necessarily result in the death of the vast majority.

So we have to ask, what's the point of this "toughen all men up" mentality when even IF it was effective, AND all men could be toughened up to an "acceptable" level, only a small minority of the toughest will survive anyway?

[–]pentuplemintgum666 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]X-Trem013 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]babalu32-3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds 79 points80 points81 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoulofEquality 88 points89 points90 points 8 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]PE187 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoulofEquality 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hixidom 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]muhkayluh_z -47 points-46 points-45 points 8 years ago* (51 children) | Copy Link

This is why you need feminism and men's shelters. I'm here for the downvotes. But come on. You guys can't pretend like this post isn't a symptom of absolutely toxic masculinity, one thing feminism is working diligently to erase. Yeah men do need access to therapists and shelters and general mental and physical healthcare. And ya damn right no one should be told to "man up" to erase the emotions they're feeling. This MRA sub does nothing but complain about how men and women are treated differently instead of offer up actual changes to the problems like custodial rights and inequalities in jail times for same crimes. Y'all aren't advocates, y'all are just a bunch of complainers who have been "wronged" a time or two.

Edit: I'm legitimately enjoying the conversation below however I am being throttled by reddit. So if I don't answer you, that's why. I'm not ignoring anyone and I'm replying when I can.

[–]Jenbu 59 points60 points61 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roolerk 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]muhkayluh_z -31 points-30 points-29 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptSnap 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who do you think elects all the "evil non-feminist" men in government? The ones that are perfectly willing to help women but not men.

Did Hilary's campaign have a tenet to help men in prison? No? It had one for women. Are women the majority of the prison population? (not even close) Was she not feminist? So its not really a clear case that just electing women will help men is it?

In fact, can you name a politician either man or woman that is an advocate for men? No? Why is that? Could it be because men's issues arent major issues for the electorate?

Put some stock in women run goverments and watch all of these problems shift and change.

This has absolutely no basis in reality. Not now and not ever in the past.

It must be hard to be a woman and live in a society that prioritized women's problems, women's health and women's safety and always has and to also have an ideological movement advocating for you where all of your problems can be blamed on men. And then to tell men that of course their problems are because they arent like women. Literally if men would just cry like women then other men would bend over backwards to placate you because thats what worked for them. That only works if society gives a shit about you.

MRA's are working under a different rule book. How do you get society to treat you better when they dont care about you at all? Do you see the difference? Thats why what works for women's advocacy wont work for men. Men are disposable and its easier to just throw them away than to solve any of their problems. Women cant even imagine what thats like

[–]babalu3224 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RelentlesslyDead 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Men's shelters are seen as less necessary or too expensive.

Why?

That's a problem with our state and local goverments, which, unsurprisingly are mostly run by men

What are you implying here? That men are inherently less capable of being in positions of power? That men, although they clearly want to enforce the patriarchy, do the exact opposite once elected and focus on women's issues instead?

Feminism seeks to make life better for all

I've heard that a lot. But it's obviously untrue. Like, what is the last thing that feminism has done to help men, in your opinion? Nothing, honestly.

Put some stock in women run goverments and watch all of these problems shift and change

Are you implying that simply having female leaders will fix our problems? That is quite naïve.

Or donate to your local men's shelter.

I would totally do that if there was one.

[–]Arby01 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]biscuitgravy 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LMAO! How are you so confident that Feminists (or women) could fix this? By virtue of the fact that they're women? If Feminists wanted to fix this, they would have. They get big money off of women's shelters. What incentive would they ever have to advocate against the physical and sexual abuse of men by women?

As for more women leaders, why wouldn't women support a system of extraction that benefits them? History has shown that women have been just as capable of using male labor throughout the years. (E.g. they're not trying to work dangerous, dirty jobs even though they've legally been allowed to work since the beginning of the USA).

We live in a extractive, capitalist world. It's not specifically a pro-male, pro-heterosexual, or pro-White system. There's no toxic masculinity. There are poor White males and there are rich Black females. All of the discrimination only exists in the wider spectrum of "how much stuff can I get from you". And women are getting a lot. They are living longer, spending more money, and have more rights than men. We SHOULD call it toxic femininity since women are the ones who benefit most from it?

Men and women are different people. We're starting to forget that as Feminist indoctrination suggests that we're not. If you're a man, you have distinct hormones that affect your physical and emotional makeup. You can dress and act and fuck however you want, but do it as a man. We'll never be able to address male problems if we don't understand what a man actually is. Men should aggressive, competitive, and have a healthy sex drive. Those are biological. Those are symptoms of a healthy man.

I don't think men should be told to "man up" as a way to dismiss their feelings. But they need to be told. And then, MOST IMPORTANTLY, whoever told them that needs to help them get there.

Feminists want to dismiss those feelings in a similar way that people who say "man up" do. They just have the inverse argument.

Instead of "If you're a man, then you'll overcome this"...

They say, "If you weren't acting like such a man, then you wouldn't have to overcome this".

Both illogical arguments, and both unhelpful.

[–]jesting766 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyBattts 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is why you need feminism

instead of offer up actual changes to the problems

Funny guy. MRA's have repeatedly tried to change laws and policies to make them more fair to men and boys. Guess who has opposed them -- EVERY SINGLE TIME? Oh that's right, feminists.

Here's a short history

If you're honest, and I expect you aren't, you will now acknowledge that not only is feminism not the solution to addressing men's issues, it is the main impediment to addressing men's issues.

As for shelters, look up Earl Silverman. He was given the runaround by feminists in the Canadian government when he tried to open a men's shelter. Eventually he committed suicide. Thankfully the men's rights group CAFE recently opened a men's center in Toronto. Needless to say they didn't receive any help from feminists or the government.

We repeat this pattern every time a post makes it to r/all. Ignorant posters chime in with the claim that feminism is the way and the light. Such a belief can only be caused by one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty.

[–]DarthCerebroX 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jammersault 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoulofEquality 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]muhkayluh_z -23 points-22 points-21 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Doing a quick Google search reveals that in social science, toxic masculinity is used to describe the behaviors of Western men that often have negative social and psychological effects (just wanted a more precise definition rather than anecdotal). In practice, we see this in the way men are told to "man up." This is a philosophy that has been passed down, from traditionally masculine acts and behaviors. No one should have their emotions invalidated and swept to the rug just because they're a man. This creates suppression and anger issues. It's not right. We can still see the effects of toxic masculinity when a young boy or man experiments with a stereotypically feminine act (makeup) or cries or expresses any type of "weak" emotion. No one is weak for crying out of sadness, anger, frustration, joy. Crying is natural. What's not natural is suppressing that and man-ing up.

[–]SoulofEquality 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]muhkayluh_z 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except for the fact that women aren't expected to do or be anything. They have fought long and hard to get a much better deal than men have ever had. Men on the other hand are told to conform, and do horribly in school, because we are not allowed to be boys, and are simultaneously held to the old standard of men by society. If one of us males dares bring up the fact that we have different issues that are not being adressed, we are told, a) shut up, that discussion isn't worth having because you are imagining things, b) well then you are just suffering from a lack of funding, so shut up and fund it yourself. In other words, your problems don't exist, and even if they do, you caused them, so just shut up and go fix them yourselves. And even when we try to go and talk about them ourselves, rabid feminists, most of whom have no clue about the history of their hate group, come into our discussion and try to tell us how our problems are all our fault, and society doesn't need us. Who the hell do you think you are helping here?

[–]SoulofEquality 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I will agree that people of my sex are expected to be a certain way, and men are expected to be a different way. But do you recognize that there are far fewer expectations for us every year...and men have not yet gotten to this point? I'm a very masculine female. I have incredibly short hair, typically wear male or gender neutral clothing, have entirely male friends, work in a male-dominated field, and enjoy stereotypically male hobbies. Yes, I've been shunned and mocked by peers, family, past female friends, teachers, etc...but it is still worse for boys and men, because it is almost always (in my experiences and talking to males I know) women and girls who are doing said shaming.

I've never had a guy tell I'm a nerd for playing D&D. Never had a male teacher tell me to stop acting like a boy and stop climbing in the playground. Never had my uncles tell me I can't take motorcycle rides with them. I've never had to defend my love of comic books and videogames to a dude. It's always always been other females...and they also seem to be the core demographic writing articles informing men that they are pussies, bitches, fuckbois, pansies, or "Peter Pans" for not upholding traditional roles. Yes, some men do it too...M. Kimmel comes to mind, as well as Jordan Peterson.

But if this is supposed to be toxic masculinity, why are so many women in favor of men continuing it?

[–]The__Y 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoulofEquality 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I honestly think it depends on how "tough" or masculine the woman is. Opposites attract, after all, and while it's good to share some aspects of your personality with your partner/lover/spouse, I still think it works best if one has a masculine-esque personality and one is feminine-esque.

For example, I like being the "provider" on dates, I hate having guys pay for me and am not even a big fan of splitting the dinner bill. I like being the one to kill the spiders, drive the car, give the gifts, initiate the sex, and not be afraid to get my hands dirty. I feel worthless right now because I've been unemployed for the last 2 weeks, and have sold old unworn jewelry of mine to pay bills instead of claiming unemployment because I loathe the idea of not taking care of myself. (Yes, I recognize that this is not a healthy way to view oneself and am working on unlearning it.) So the addition of a "tough" man into my life would equal too much toughness, which is why I love that my fwb is more outwardly emotional, fun-loving, delightfully "childish", and open to receiving... everything I'm not. The concept of Yin and Yang exists for a reason.

Now, you get a Red Pill woman on your hands? One who enjoys being cared for, having a man around the house, likes chivalry, wants kids, thinks it's sweet to have the door opened for her and for the guy to insist on paying? Yeah, she's soft and almost certainly wants a tough man to take the wheel. Which is not a bad thing, so long as that's what the guy wants too. It's just different and different isn't necessarily wrong.

[–]The__Y 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SoulofEquality2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, the nature vs nurture debate is definitely a controversial one. I lean a lot more towards nature myself, particularly because I've participated in transgender/gender dysphoria studies involving measurements of brain activity and it was shown that for the control group of cis women their brains reacted one way whereas the females in my group had reactions much closer to that of men.

Also remember the book As Nature Made Him, the true story of a boy who had a horribly botched circumcision that basically removed his penis...if you haven't read it, I highly recommend doing so despite how utterly tragic it is. Anyway, David was raised completely as a girl and he absolutely hated it, didn't feel right, etc. He eventually ended up killing himself as an adult. But the doctor involved in his case lied through his teeth about David, using his imaginary portrayals of the boy to push his moronic "blank slate" theory of gender identity which Feminists latched onto desperately. After all, it "proved" that boys and girls were exactly the same... needless to say it is total hogwash and made things incredibly difficult for transpeople everywhere, since if gender is simply what society tells you, it doesn't involve your fetal development whatsoever. Yeah, right. Male brains have differences from female brains, and a few of us are caught in the middle.

However, I do think that there are core concepts that every human, regardless of sex, can be taught. Things like honesty, empathy, compassion, honor, perseverance, mental and emotional strength... these shouldn't be inherent to one sex over the other. When I see societies like ours that have lost empathy for men, I think it is a failing of that generation's teachers/parents/media not proof that women are biologically unable to care about males.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]muhkayluh_z -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

social science

Issue 1.

toxic masculinity is used to describe the behaviors of Western men that often have negative social and psychological effects

Well non-western men beat, rape, murder, stone and punish women for anything and everything they want so are you saying that taking up non-western ideals and cultures will eradicate so called 'toxic masculinity'? Why are you advocating for people who hate everything you stand for?

In practice, we see this in the way men are told to "man up."

The only time anyone has told me to man up in a non-joking way was when a woman was trying to get me to do something for her I didnt want to do.

This is a philosophy that has been passed down, from traditionally masculine acts and behaviors

We are deep into the second generation of people who will have been mainly raised and taught by women and for some reason these 'toxic' behaviours are getting worse? Maybe stop putting men in prison for drug offences, remove government assistance for single mothers and shame willing single mothers for making choices that will cause suffering for her children and perpetuate generational poverty.

[–]PM_ME_ALL_THE_BOOBIE 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]muhkayluh_z -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_ALL_THE_BOOBIE 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]muhkayluh_z -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm here because I'm actively trying not to live in my own bubble. I don't agree with a lot of things I see in this sub, or rather, the way they are approached. I dated a man who recently had gone through a divorce and had a young daughter stuck in the middle and his trash ex was trying to gain full custody. My own step dad went through those issues with his kids so I've seen how unfair the courts are to Dad's. But do I think this is a direct result of women being on this Earth? No. I think this is a result of women being expected or assumed to be the better nurturer and parent and the expectation that they should care for the kids solely. That's bullshit. But I've never seen any one here offer up much more than a sarcastic quip blaming women or saying they are getting a vasectomy because they never want to go through that, neither of which do the job of fixing the problem which is the way courts are structured to favor women in custodial battles. I'm here to see other people's world views, acknowledge them, debate them if I'm so inclined.

[–]superhobo666 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. I think this is a result of women being expected or assumed to be the better nurturer and parent and the expectation that they should care for the kids solely.

You might think that's the case, but you would be wrong.

Feminists were the source of the 'tender years doctrine' that the courts used to assign children to the mother. This was a reversal of previous policy that assigned them to the father.

This sub and many in it have actively campaigned for and supported various father's rights groups in pushing for "a default presumption of shared parenting in the court system". This legislation has been consistently opposed by feminist organizations in the US. Primarily the largest feminist organization in the world, NOW, the National Organization of Women.

So, no, it's not because "women being expected or assumed", it's because feminists fight for it.

But I've never seen any one here offer up much more

And, you are completely mistaken because you want to believe that- from the afore mentioned legal activism to men's shelters and CAFE speakers, etc, etc. This sub does way more to advocate for men's issue than your preferred "men's lib" reddit.

[–]hixidom 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyBattts 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tepidatious 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthCerebroX 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Here’s a dozen more examples of mainstream feminist organizations (such as NOW, the most powerful feminist organization in the world) fighting against true gender equality..

** Karen Straughan on the “those aren’t real feminists” argument**

The following is a very informed comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter.

You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss (one of the most highly regarded feminists alive today- who is credited with changing the federal rape laws and the FBI definition of rape), who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape... meaning whenever a woman takes advantage of an inebriated/sleeping/unconscious man or forces him to sleep with her, these crimes are classified as a much lesser charge.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

—

[–]theothermod[M] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthCerebroX 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Arby01 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jesting766 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why you need feminism and men's shelters.

Anytime someone suggests men need their own space for ANYTHING (not just shelters from abusive women), who is the first to step up and shout it down, declare it sexist and exclusionary?

I'll give you a hint: It's not macho men exerting toxic masculinity.

You guys can't pretend like this post isn't a symptom of absolutely toxic masculinity, one thing feminism is working diligently to erase.

Which you screwed up, majorly. (Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, blocking Shared Parenting, etc).

And ya damn right no one should be told to "man up" to erase the emotions they're feeling.

Including those feminists mocking it with "Male Tears" and labeling it as "Mansplaining", telling them to check their privilege.

This MRA sub does nothing but complain about how men and women are treated differently instead of offer up actual changes to the problems like custodial rights and inequalities in jail times for same crimes.

First you have to get society to wake up to the fact men and women are treated differently in terms of custody, crime, and empathy. For how can people be aware if they refuse to see it?

Y'all aren't advocates, y'all are just a bunch of complainers who have been "wronged" a time or two.

First, referring to others as "Y'all" does nothing for the credibilty of your arguments.

Secondly, yeah and? So what? That supposed to be a bad thing? After all, feminism is full of women who have been wronged expressing their experiences. It worked, didn't it?

[–]DarthCerebroX 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and this is why you need feminism

Bullshit... the last thing men need is more feminism.

Feminism and feminists have a long history of fucking over men and silencing men's issues... so yes, they kind of are in direct opposition to men’s rights and true gender equality..

Do you have any idea how the Men's Rights Activists that are trying to bring awareness and fix mens issues are treated by feminists?

Every time MRA's try to hold an event or conference they are protested, and threatened, censored and many times shut down. They are met with chants of "racist, sexist, anti gay- go away MRA". Even academics such as English professor at University of Ottawa, Janice Fiamengo, was trying to give a lecture about men's issues and feminists pull the fire alarm and shut the whole thing down.

They can't even bring awareness to Men's issues, much less start to address them. How can MRA's fight to fix these problems when they're not even allowed to make people aware of them!?

Another example is one I already mentioned, the way feminists have fought to keep a monopoly on the domestic violence issue. You should research Erin Pizzey . She's a women that created the very first women's shelter. After she had spent so much time with DV victims (men and women because she didn't discriminate) she learned that men were victims just as often as women, and that the abuse often went both ways. When she tried to release her findings feminists fought to censor her. They threatened her, harassed her and ran her out of the country. She went on to co-found A Voice for Men and became a strong supporter of Men's Rights issues.

This kind of behavior and pushback is the reason that there are thousands of DV shelters for women today, but only one men's shelter. And out of all the female domestic violence shelters, less than 5% are willing to take in men.

Also the Duluth Model that was created by feminists which states that DV is caused by the patriarchy giving all men power over all women. They claim that because women are the oppressed gender, it's impossible for them to be the aggressor. These ideas were made into laws that have discriminated against male victims for decades and these practices are still in use in many states today.

If you take the time to actually research the feminist movement, you might learn that feminism has harmed men and fought against men's issues a lot more that you ever imagined.

There's a reason we are anti-feminist..

EDIT: regarding feminism and domestic violence....

Even today, with all the statistics showing that men make up half of all domestic abuse victims... and that women are actually the aggressor 70% when it comes to unreciprocated violence....

.. Mainstream modern feminists continue to push these false narratives that domestic violence is a women's issue and that it's Men that are the abusers.

Katherine Spillar , director of Majority Feminist Organization and executive editor for Ms Magazine, said in her interview for the red pill movie that...

"The whole issue of domestic violence-- that's just another word really. It's a clean up word for wife beating.. because that's what it really is.

Its not girls that are beating up on boys, it's boys that are beating up on girls."

Yeah... this is coming from someone with a lot of power and influence in the feminist movement and you could argue that she is a big spokesperson for the movement...

.. And yet she has no problem denying the existence of male DV victims and painting men, and only men, as the abusers.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JediMasterSteveDave 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]bastardstepchild 40 points41 points42 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I hate that despite the fact that I struggle in life with mental health Im still expected to suck it up and get on with it.

I hate that I will never know what it feels like to be valued by others for something other than what I can do for them.

I hate that I work every single day through my problems only for the state to take my money and transfer it to a single mother who made poor life decisions she will never have to face.

I hate that if tomorrow I lost my home and had no support network I would be sleeping on the street like the poor wretched men I see infesting my cities center.

I hate that I have to sit and listen to women complain ceaselessly about how awful men are and how hard finding a good man is but I cant say that I see women as being awful because I genuinely have never once had a good experience with women.

I hate that Im excluded from the idea of valid 'lived experiences' because I share traits with people who control the country.

I hate that my gender is demonised for holding positions of power despite every thing in life pushing us harder and harder to be that way.

I hate that there are so many historical lies that people believe. If I had been born for WWI, providing I survived to return home, I would only then be allowed to control my own countries fate.

I hate that I have to live in fear that if I speak to the wrong woman or interpret a situation incorrectly I can have my life torn apart in moments.

I hate that every time I see something about mental health in the press it is always about a woman and her struggles.

I hate that social media has exposed women to so many men that want to be with them that they have lost any and all sympathy or empathy for how much it hurts to be rejected 1000 times.

I love being a man.

[–]rocelot7 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This hits a little nugget I feel is worth discussions; "What am I manning up for?"

That is a good question. Accepting that 'man up' means just that, it seems outrageous to demand a man accept any burden without any external respect or social gain. I suppose one can get by through adoration from those close to them but that's going to be limited, and for how many is that enough? Maybe for a quiet majority it is, most likely for a quite majority it is since though men's issues are raising in awareness those who call themselves MRA still exist in the minority. Most people rather cling to outdated notions of what a 'man' used to mean, and either willfully or not ignore how both law and society seem to treat that concept with a scarily increasing degree of contempt.

And at the end of the day is this something we call really fix? Family and divorce laws could change to diminish the risk to a nigh emotional one but would that rectify the trend we see in effectively all western nations of men just opting out of former expected duties. MGTOW, grass-eaters, herbivores, and what have you call them is growing trend lacking a central philosophy beyond a rejection of expectations placed on men. This inclination is nothing if not a symptom of a rather larger and nebulous issue that goes beyond feminism, stoical disconnect in the digital age, either polarization or apathetic disdain for most political discourse, the failing of an education system to prep its students for an ever changing world, and much more that would be innumerable to list here. Lets not mince words if these notions gain prominence it will be dangerous. I'm not going to be hyperbolic apocalyptic and suggest this could lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it. But humanity has never been in a comparable situation before and if we don't tread carefully we could see the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So where does that leave us, a loose collection of people from all walks of life finding ourselves only in agreement that something needs to be done over societies treatment of men. Hell, we can barley find agreement in that most of the time. Maybe I'm being horribly reductionist here but is improving the lot we men find ourselves in enough where even the basic concept is being brought into question. I honestly don't know anymore.

[–]babalu3227 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]shellbroth1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Last sentence is wrong: we are MORE disposable than a red cup. The red cup has a purpose at least...

[+]X-Trem01 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

So do you.

You're a wealth creating entity

She is a wealth distributing entity

[–]superhobo666 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]X-Trem05 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Philosophy_Mammoth 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]X-Trem02 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]marikickass -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Philosophy_Mammoth 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Str8OuttaTheBoneZone 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sirdomino 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm in a situation that makes me really sad. I lost my job in June, I have been applying for jobs since then and still unemployed. We have drained our savings and hit what little retirement we have left. My wife was then diagnosed with cancer, and we just maxed out our health insurance but still can't afford it. I have two kids and we feed them but my wife and I only eat 1 meal per day now because we can't afford to eat more. My wife works and because of this we make right at the cut off for ANY sort of help. We don't qualify for free/reduced lunch for my children, we don't qualify for any food stamps, or welfare, or any other benefits. We don't qualify for cheaper health insurance through the exchange, we don't qualify for any help what so ever. Sadly we are going to lose everything unless I find a decent job soon. All the low wage jobs would still cause us to lose so much per month, plus I'm "overqualified" all the jobs that pay what I need to break even I can't get because I'm not a veteran with a security clearance. I have health issues which prevent me from working anything beyond an office / sitting job. My only option is to leave my family and go elsewhere for work. But how can I leave my wife when she has cancer and 2 kids and works?

I feel hopeless, lost, and completely forgotten by society. My mental health is suffering, none of my extended family care or want to help us. And we've cut every single thing out of the budget and still are so far into the hole. I would give up if I didn't have a family, but I have to keep trying. I have no one to even talk to about this as my wife is already stressed with cancer, and I can't let the kids know what is going on they are so little (6 and 2).

I am calling local churches right now to see if any of them can spare some food, so we'll see how that works out...

[–]theothermod[M] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheRoman 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theothermod 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]marikickass -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]QUAN-FUSION 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PE187 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darksideofthemoon131 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hixidom 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]tiredofthisshit2017 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]remarker 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I feel genuinely bad for this guy, he clearly feels like the world has abandoned him. I hope he is able to find someone whose solution to him doesn't devolve to "manning up".

That said, he says "IVE CALLED SO MANY THERAPISTS" after saying "...NO ONE REALLY GIVES A FUCK TO HELP ME". A therapist is literally paid to give a fuck to help you. So I'm not sure what's going on here. I hope this guy keeps looking and didn't just talk to a couple of shitty therapists and just gave up.

Sometimes we look for reasons to fail so we don't have to do the work involved with succeeding; it's easier to say we tried and it didn't work out. Like when you're calling someone you don't want to talk to, and while it's ringing you end the call a little earlier and just say "well I guess they're not there" without really trying to make it happen. You're doing the bare minimum just to say you've tried.

[–]Scarbane 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hixidom 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DirtAndGrass 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]MET1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]IronJohnMRA 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]X-Trem01 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

until they have no more use for them... then they are classified as garbage and disposed accordingly

[–]timo103 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aeponix -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are manning up for yourself. You don't do it for anyone else, because they are in it for themselves, they're not trying to help you.

Part of being an adult is learning to not be overly emotional. It's learning to fight every day to work on what is wrong with your life.

It's by no means easy, but life isn't easy. Life is not a safe space. If you aren't willing to fight for yourself, you will die alone and miserable.

Being an adult means finding a functional place in society. Not for them, but for you. You won't survive otherwise.

As for your personal problems, you will have to do your own research and learn how to fix yourself. The world isn't going to give you a pass, so you have to learn how to heal and function at the same time. If you can't, then you're not strong enough, and I'm sorry for you, but life isn't fair.

If I made the rules, I would set up support systems to help people like you get on their feet. But I don't make the rules, and I'm not in a position to do more than provide insight. Maybe some day there will be systems in place for people like you and I, but for now, we only have ourselves to rely on to succeed in this world.

[–]marikickass -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]marikickass -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]marikickass -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]marikickass -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]marikickass -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Odz2427 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]warcroft -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That post completely has the wrong idea about what 'being a man' and 'manning up' mean.

Being a man is about taking control of you life, making the decisions, standing by your convictions and accepting responsibility.

Having a purpose. Finding that purpose within yourself. Not what other people tell you your purpose is.

Standing up for yourself and others. To defend and protect those that need it.

There's a saying: "It is in the search for God that we discover who we are."

Replace 'God' with 'meaning', 'purpose' or whatever your interpretation of 'God' is.

Now here is the big mistake almost ALL males make. We are raised with the wrong understanding of what 'being a man' is. Society and women have taught us that men are to be loyal servants. We await our next instruction on what to do next. "Go to work! Support the family!" Do this, do that, be a man, suck it up, do what you're told. We get dictated to and forced into roles which leave us miserable and unfulfilled.

We spend our lives doing what everyone else wants. Trying to satisfy everyone else. But ultimately never doing what we actually want to do. You think you're going to be praised and rewarded for doing what others tell you to do? You think theres some life fulfilling feeling of satisfaction at the end of it all?

There isn't.

"It is in the search for God that we discover who we are." (You're not searching if you're being told where to look.)

If you spend your life doing what you're told, trying to make everyone else happy, you will end up feeling hollow and miserable. Unfulfilled.

Being a man is not about throwing away responsibilities and doing whatever you want and fuck everyone else.

Being a man is about you being the one to make the decisions.

If you're in a relationship and the woman asks you to do something to help her, do it, but you do it your way. Men are problem solvers. We like to solve and fix things. If you're being told what to do and how to help her then, like I said earlier, you're just a mindless servant waiting for your next instruction.

If you're single, take ownership of yourself. Don't play the victim and blame everyone and everything for your situation.

Men like problems. Men like solving and fixing things. It gives us a sense of worth. A sense of purpose. Solving problems make us feel good about ourselves. Feelings of accomplishment.

"It is in the search for God that we discover who we are." (You're not solving a problem if you're given the answer.)

Life is a problem. Men solve problems.

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

Down voted? Really? My comment and others like mine are down voted because they give advise on how to move forward? You know, actual advise? Not "Wow, sorry dude." Followed by my own stories of pity and depression, then a discussion on what masculinity is.

"Be a man" also means not to get tangled up by emotion. Men are not driven by emotion. Men are not wired to 'safely' handle feelings and emotional responses.

A women is emotionally driven. They can switch it on and off at a whim. It has no long term effect on them. When a woman is emotional they need to release it with someone. Someone to share the emotion with. They dont fix the issue, they just spread it out there, spread it among their friends.

Men cant process emotion the way a woman does. Men ball it up, let it fester. As more and more keeps piling on it drives them crazy! Men need physical outbursts to release it.

How many times have you argued with a woman and its left you fuming with rage? But the woman has seemingly switched off from it? That's because the woman has unloaded her emotion onto the man so she is clear now. But men are rational/logical problem solvers. Mens brains are made for solving things. But emotion cant be solved.

So all this emotion is dumped onto the man and the man keeps it all inside trying to deal with it. Trying to solve it. But they cant because it cant be solved. The more it builds up the more it fucks with their head.

Saying a man needs to open up about it, or to express their feelings is a womans solution and it does not work. Why? Because a man opening up about their pent up emotional baggage and sharing it with someone else is like giving up on the problem and asking for the solution. To a man thats like failing.

And the man once again leaves himself open to be told what to do by someone else. And the cycle starts again.

Guys might want help to solve problems, like getting a friend to help you do your guttering.

But being told what to do and how to fix your problems is like paying someone else to do the guttering for you. Yeah, its done. You didn't do anything, you didnt accomplish anything, theres no sense of achievement or self worth.

'Man up' means to step up, take charge and do it yourself. It doesn't mean you're alone. Far from it. It means you're in charge. Only you can solve your problem.

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

[–]warcroft -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]highcaliber88 -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]holader -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FreshAsBasil -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Anon is right
Author	EricTheRoman
Upvotes	1769
Comments	215
Date	December 14, 2017 9:08 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7jqhdu/anon_is_right/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/anon-is-right.909410 https://theredarchive.com/post/909410

Comments