Some thoughts I've been having over the past couple days, thought I'd post it here.
When Feminists talk about the problem of "toxic masculinity" they're half right. There are men who behave in a way that is destructive to themselves and others because they want to live up to a warped idea of what it means to be a man. The problem is they diagnose the problem wrong. They blame the Patriarchy, i.e. Men. Masculinity, toxic or otherwise, doesn't originate with men. It originates with women. Specifically, it comes from women's collective sexual/romantic preferences. (Straight) women are almost universally attracted to men who are assertive, emotionally stable, confident, and adventurous (that's masculinity). Some women (often those who aren't particularly mature themselves) mistake aggresiveness, emotional detachment, arrogance, and rashness (i.e. "toxic masculinity") for those traits. Hence why so many women fall in love with imprisoned rapists and murderers despite knowing that these are horrible people.
Feminists sometimes point to the fact that men often make fun of their friends for acting in an "unmasculine" way as evidence that enforced masculinity originates with men. That's because they don't understand how male friend groups work. When we rip on each other, it's not because of any genuine malice or intent to control or hurt. It's because if you don't hear that you smell funny or are slightly overweight or walk in an unusual manner in a good-natured roasting session with your friends, you probably won't ever hear it, and it might be something you need to hear. It's not because we actually think less of our friends because of whatever flaws they might have (otherwise we wouldn't be friends with them), it's because we know other people they meet might, and we want them to be as successful as possible. So when we make fun of a friend for buying a "girly" drink or tearing up over something minor, it's not because we think less of him for it. It's because we know women will. We're trying to help him to succeed in the most important way, biologically speaking: impressing women.
The biggest con ever pulled was feminism convincing society that men, as a class, hated women. You can find individual misogynists, but, on the whole, men have always been quite fond of women. Almost everything men do is ultimately an attempt to please women. Women have always been able to control the course of society simply by adjusting their sexual behavior (see the Temperance Movement). If you want to make men behave in a certain way, look to women.
[–]thrway_1000 27 points28 points29 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]thekanator [recovered] (31 children) | Copy Link
I think it is really hard to prove masculinity was created by women. It's just highly speculative. A more likely hypothesis was that it was an ideal created universally among most people.
[–]bufedad 8 points9 points10 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[+]thekanator [recovered] (25 children) | Copy Link
Your hypothesis would only work if all women were attracted to only ONE type of man.
[+]DinoInNameOnly [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
They are.
OKCupid data indicates that all women are more attracted to men who are taller, white, and high-income. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that that pattern probably applies to harder-to-measure traits too.
[–]not_just_amwac 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thekanator2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[+]thekanator [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link
Well if there are women who are attracted to men who aren't traditionally masculine, then you can't say women created the ideal of masculinity, because not all women participated in the discussion. It's like saying all of congress supported a bill because it passed. (even though there were nay votes.
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+]thekanator1 points [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link
I never said there were people not interested in reproduction, I said that there are people not interested in the traditional masculine archetype. The theory of evolution states that species will have variations, and those variations also include variations of what the females are attracted to. The problem with saying that women created the idea of masculinity is that you would be taking a portion of the female community and applying their actions to the entire gender. Of course, this is sexism 101, and it is also logically flawed. Unless you include caveats in the statement "women created the ideal" I have to take it at face value, and at face value it is illogical and discriminatory. Also I find it very hard to believe Men never participated in defining the ideal of masculinity. Ever heard of Ernest Hemingway?
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[+]thekanator1 points [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link
My point is that blanketly stating that all women want the same thing (which is what women creating masculinity entails) is logically flawed because there is no caveat such as "on average", or "typically." If you don't include these terms you misrepresent an entire gender as the same thing, and also misunderstand evolution (which as a major component includes having VARIATIONS)
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]thekanator1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thekanator1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thekanator1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thekanator0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thekanator1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thekanator1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thekanator1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bufedad1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]disgruntled_lawyer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]NoFuryLikeKristine [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I think it may have just been natural selection. Males who produced more testosterone were probably way more likely to survive and reproduce, and women became wired to sense high testosterone in men because it was a sign of success/safety, in part due to being raped by dominant men throughout history.
[+]thekanator [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
wtf this makes no sense. How do women evolve to like more dominant men y being raped. That's not natural selection, that's artificial selection by the rapist. Also it's not even that because the rapist doesn't even know that the women likes dominant men.
[–]NoFuryLikeKristine1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xNOM 4 points5 points6 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hillary_For_Prison 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]NoFuryLikeKristine [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link
I think their idea of gender equality is impossible. The genders could definitely be equal in weight, but have different forms, simply because men and women are inherently different. Feminists (or postmodern thought in general) seem to have this idea that our bodies are just vehicles separate from ourselves that trap us into socially constructed roles, which is ridiculous. Our biology certainly affects our behavior, and our brains mostly operate on a subconscious level.
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoFuryLikeKristine 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]xNOM -1 points0 points1 point (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]NoFuryLikeKristine [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
Yeah that's what I was trying to say... fair/balanced.
Edit: By "objective definition" I meant that we should establish real goals for what balanced/fair should look like, because feminists don't have any kind of established goal. They have the mindset that women have less rights than men, so everything they do or see is from that perspective. So if we could somehow quantify or define a goal to aim towards, then achieving a balance is more likely.
It's difficult but not impossible to at least come up with a philosophy people can use to look at the big picture and determine if it's off balance. I don't know why we're even arguing because it sounds like you agree with me anyway.
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+]NoFuryLikeKristine [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
Ok, so then why even bother talk about men's rights and criticize feminism? If it's 100% subjective, then I guess you men should just learn how to be happy and quit bitching. I don't want to see anymore complaints from you men about any unfairness, because it's all in your head. Just be happy about it.
Expressing gratitude literally makes you happier. Instead of saying, "Ugh, it's so unfair that I only get to see my kids every other weekend and I pay my ex $800 a month!" Why don't you say, "I'm so thankful that my ex lets me see my kid 52 hours a year AND I get to pay her $800 a month". If every man thought like that, then at least gender balance is solved at your end. Now we just need women to be happy with their privileges and I should stop complaining about how it's unfair to men.
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]NoFuryLikeKristine [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
So are you advocating that MRAs and feminists just focus on changing their perspectives to believe that the current gender roles are fair and balanced? Because if you believe that gender balance is objectively impossible and only subjective, then that is the only way to achieve this goal in your perspective. Talking about objective inequalities (like men having no reproductive rights) is a waste of time 100% because it's irrelevant to your goal. I don't really care if we disagree or not, I'm just trying to understand your point of view and bring out any inconsistencies in your logic (what I do for everyone).
[–]xNOM1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NoFuryLikeKristine1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xNOM1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sneakpeekbot1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NoFuryLikeKristine0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xNOM0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (22 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (15 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]aussietoads 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]piccorito 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Dnile1000BC 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Krissam 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hillary_For_Prison 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hillary_For_Prison 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dnile1000BC 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoFuryLikeKristine 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Dnile1000BC 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mythandros 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]disgruntled_lawyer 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Mythandros 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]disgruntled_lawyer 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]disgruntled_lawyer 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hillary_For_Prison 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (21 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]OnTheSlope 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dnile1000BC 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (15 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Dnile1000BC 5 points6 points7 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]rileymarks1 -2 points-1 points0 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dnile1000BC 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]disgruntled_lawyer 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rileymarks1 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dnile1000BC 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rileymarks1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]rileymarks1 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]rileymarks1 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ISOanexplanation 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ISOanexplanation -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link