I have a friend who is preparing himself for divorce and he is terrified of what may happen.
As I tried to counsel him a bit to help him down from the worry ladder, I thought to myself how scary it is that even despite our current point in history, divorce has rarely if ever worked well for men, and most of what I say to console him is likely meaningless comfort.
With all the problems in the world, worry is what kills the most of us. I manage it by only focusing on what I can control and by staying out of the spotlight of scrutiny and shame as a man myself. It's probably also the reason why I've chosen to not get married unfortunately as well to this day.
This is another reason we need to be fighting for economic reform. Divorce will never be pleasant, but ensuring economic self-sufficiency for everyone, at least finances will be out of the picture in these separations. Another way for us to create a society that supports men.
Funnily enough, this post relate a bit to my family's experience, despite not living in the US. The older male judges (and even advocates) debouting my father times and times again, the only attorneys willing to take the case being young attorneys from a lot less conservative area, and the only judge ruling in favor being a younger, female judge.
I've understood early that feminism was not about women but about gender perception.
> The older male judges (and even advocates) debouting my father times and times again, the only attorneys willing to take the case being young attorneys from a lot less conservative area, and the only judge ruling in favor being a younger, female judge
And the fact that a young female judge ruled in his favor should tell you that society is still improving: feminism was necessary at one point, like BLM currently is, but the goal is not to favor a specific gender or ethnicity (or whatever) but to create a level playing field for all! This is the road to progress!
We aren't there yet, and it will certainly take a long time as social progress is very slow and many cultures and society are extremely conservative - even those you would think beyond that: simply look at how Europe decries what we do here in America as "wokeism", and you'll understand they've still got a long way to go...
However, I see a lot of signs that it's not just a vain hope: the world is improving, on many indicators. It's a slow tide that'll lift all boats. It may hit first those of us who live in America, but everyone will eventually benefit from social progress.
I have not read this, but I really like the philosopher David Benatar. A book he wrote The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys may be interesting.
As a brown immigrant man, most of the sublte form of racisms I face come from previleged white women. My hypothesis is unchecked narrative of victimization is enabling racism. Most of these women don't probably think they are doing anything wrong to begin with since it's women empowerment.
It is not very subtile. I am a German dude with Russian roots. When I write in my tinder profile that I have Russian roots, I get nearly 0 matched from German girls. When I remove that sentence (same pics, the rest of the profile is same) then I get matches from German girls.
A few weeks ago I wrote that I have British roots and I got flooded with matches.
Not sure of the algorithm was showing my profile more or just girls are racist towards some nations.
While I agree with most of the suggestions in the article: support racial justice, have better support systems for men, denounce and resist the tough masculinity expectations, etc.
I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
There might be some lessons to learn from the experience of a few transgender men, but I'm not sure they speak towards the experience of cis gendered men or women, they most likely speak more towards the experience of transgender men.
It feels as though men are awarded so little respect and credibility on the subject of gender issues that the only way the enlightened reader could palatably sympathize with a man is through the lens of the transgendered. It's not as if men haven't been saying these same things for years.
This is exactly why I expanded on the original article! I have been advocating for all the same interventions, but to hear it from those who have experienced both worlds is a great affirmation of my one-sided experience.
While the idea sounds reasonable, it seems a bit tone deaf. Feminism and racial justice is all about listening to minorities and not silencing their voices. But when it comes to men, we rely on the experience of a very specific group of people. With all the respect I have for these men, I don't think their experience should be considered representative of the experience of cis men in general. Just like cis men wouldn't be representative of the experience of non-cis men. Or men representative of the experience of women.
At least now I understand a bit more the frustration that people feel when they're not represented properly or not taken seriously. That's a nice side effect, and maybe was the whole point of the article. But it still leaves a bad taste.
I don't see it as relying on them, but instead adding an additional extremely compelling of evidence that backs up the core hypothesis. Nearly all complex issues have to be attacked and backed up from many different directions.
I wrote this article because the experience of these transgender men add to my own personal experiences, sometimes affirming my experiences, sometimes providing a new perspective. I have written other articles before from my own perspective.
>But when it comes to men, we rely on the experience of a very specific group of people.
I understand how one might come to this conclusion but it doesn't appear to be correct. In fact, the vast majority of medical and psychological studies has been conducted on (cis) men. Libraries are filled with the thoughts, stories and reflections of men. If anything, it seems the male experience and physiology has been the default template and has and still does claim the most space.
Therefore, I don't think this post can be considered a common or the only accepted example of how to understand the male experience. To me it was one of a very small number of similar pieces I've encountered online actually. I do think this article can actually be considered interesting due to its novelty but I really don't see how it is presented as _the only_ lense through which we should view male experiences and I don't see how that would be factually correct either.
Hit me up when women and trans people start oppressing cis men. Until then, "play mad-libs" doesn't really hold up any water. There is this thing called history, and it backs the above person's comment.
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
You claimed an entire demographic of people don't deserve respect, I think the burden is on you to explain why that is not literally the definition of bigotry.
I think you've projected that claim. I'll try to explain my comment in more detail:
"They (cis-men) are probably not awarded respect and credibility by default because historically they've been the ones causing all the shit."
Here is what I meant, broken down:
"They (cis-men)"
I should have said cis-het-men, so, my bad there. And I am indeed calling out a gigantic swath of people. But that in itself isn't an example of bigotry. Bigotry requires a particular kind of obstinate thought that rejects entirely any alternatives. If you continue reading, I think you'll see that I leave room for other possibilities.
"are probably"
Here's the first hint that the claim I'm making is hedged, as in, I'm not 100% all-in on this belief; there is room for doubt. This doesn't excuse the above generalization, but it's part of an overall supposition that there is a large group of people that the following theory applies to, and not without evidence.
"not awarded respect and credibility by default"
The parent commenter asserted their feeling that "men are awarded so little respect and credibility on the subject of gender issues". What I'm proposing with this line is that men probably can receive respect and credibility on this subject, but that they will need to do something in order to achieve it; that it will not be given to them by default.
"because historically"
Here I'm referencing how historic trends in the actions and speech of these people are what may provide evidence of my claim. By looking at past behavior of the group at large we may find a reason for the parent commenter's feeling. It's not my belief that this state of affairs in inherent to this group of people, but that it's simply been going on for a while.
"they've been the ones causing all the shit"
What I should have said instead was "being insensitive and resistant to discussion of gender issues". The point being that cis-het men in general, in many, many cases throughout history, in probably the majority of cases, have not given the kind of respect and credibility to others in terms of gender issue discussion, that the parent commenter wishes men were given.
I should have explicitly qualified in my comment that I was generalizing and only meant to impune the overall majority of that group of people. Sorry. But, my point remains... men in general will continue to be treated this way, until men in general demonstrate that their perspective has changed.
men in general will continue to be treated this way, until men in general demonstrate that their perspective has changed.
Search "john wayne racist statement". He made a quote in a 1978 playboy article that is exactly what you are saying.
You even have the 'not everyone' and 'one of the good ones' type statements thrown in that are cliches of things racists say.
I am indeed calling out a gigantic swath of people. But that in itself isn't an example of bigotry.
Yeah it is, it is the definition of bigotry.
The parent commenter asserted their feeling that
'The parent commenter'? That was you.
All this is trying to walk back statements that obviously don't hold up if you swap out any other demographic.
Post all this stuff somewhere else and leave out the name of any demographic and see how it is received.
It is literally taking a demographic that people are born into and saying they deserve to be treated with less respect than other people not in that group.
Nah dude, I didn't say they deserve anything at all. And you've got a different dictionary than I do. You can die on this weird hill if you want to, but you're way off base.
> I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
I don't think that's exactly what's happening here.
As an analogy, look at twin studies: they're undeniably based on "a sample of outliers" in a sense, yet they're also key tools in many sciences because the outlier-ness of the participants isn't [directly related to] what's being measured. Rather, it's an external factor that allows the experimenter to control for other factors that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to account for.
The accounts mentioned in this article are far from an objective result. Yet, who better to understand the differences between how men and women are treated in society than somebody who's existed as both? Assuming they "passed" before and after their transitions (a fair assumption IMO), they offer a unique and highly relevant perspective.
With all the modern political strife around these issues, which includes a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation, I think it's easy to draw certain lines between "trans" and "cis" people that may not have much basis in reality. I'm not trans, but it's my understanding that for many trans people "trans" isn't an identity in principle or practice. Rather, they are—for all useful intents and purposes—representative "members" of the genders they identify with.
> I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
Try framing it like this: foreign correspondents. They are from your culture and are able to describe the nub of what its like to be in country x and watch them do something foreign to you.
because they have experienced both things first hand they are able to describe vividly and concisely the differences and attempt to find a cause.
> there was a space and place you could talk about your feelings. In the last, you know, 10 years or so [post-transition] I can’t find those spaces necessarily for men, and I don’t know if men necessarily make those spaces for each other.
I know that I am not interested in those kinds of spaces. I do not know if this is genetic/nature or cultural/nurture. Either way, I have zero interest in creating or participating in such spaces. I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either.
But, I keep seeing these messages that there is something wrong with me for not wanting to create or participate in these types of things.
I (a cis-gendered man) find it interesting how when sensitivity comes up, or the desire for spaces to talk about vulnerability comes up, certain people (often men) treat the suggestion as if it's a personal affront to them.
It's similar to how some people react to homosexuality as if it reflects on them. "What, there are people who are attracted to the same gender?! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT ME!?!"
There are men who do like such spaces for men, but I've also seen how they can be challenging to maintain. There are a lot of feelings that come up for men, and a lot of toxic thought patterns and habits, as well as patterns that can come up around shaming others who may not feel the same way as the group.
I find also that directly talking can be useful and powerful, but so can community building alongside talking, such as participating in a shared activity- building, gaming, etc.
There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.
> There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.
>for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value
This is the void feminism left us with: men who provide nothing have no value and are at best invisible and at worst trash you avert your eyes from. It's not obvious that they're wrong.
In fact, capitalism is the cause of that culture. People (men and women) bemoan being "unproductive", dread it, and apologize for it, because modern society bombards you with conflations of productivity and self-worth. This thinking is clearly wrong. We all have inherent value.
Thankfully that has begun to change. If you believe women do not feel that way, perhaps it is because of feminism's roots in socialism. Certainly feminism does not say much about the value of unproductive men.
Capitalism invented the birth control pill and as a consequence the labor supply doubled, making men and women into fungible economic units. Feminists who worked to elevate human dignity are laudable, but unfortunately there were more entrenched interests at work.
I'm not sure you got your idea of what feminism is from the correct source, because "men who provide nothing have no value" to me this seems like the patriarchy.
disclaimer, I'm not an expert or a scholar, I just saw the effect that our society has and I'm trying to understand.
Things are complicated but: men are in charge "correct" definition (I think), superior to women is just the justification it gives for the subjugation of women.
The thing is, not all men are in charge (nor they can be), and all men are the same, so the hierarchy cannot be 2 levels: are you not interested in the ball games? down a notch; don't care to prevaricate anybody for your success? down a notch; wanna talk about feelings? and so on. (oh, bonus: like male supremacy, white supremacy is the justification for keeping non-whites down a few notches).
I'd say it's crystal clear that the patriarchy generates a system of oppression, and men are oppressed in it as well (strict definition of what makes you a real, worthy man) (amounts of oppression may vary, men on average experience less oppression than women, ask your doctor..ahem).
That's a motte and bailey. The motte is "a few men have a disproportionate amount of power in society", the bailey is "all men have more privilege than women". It's important to be clear about what's meant by patriatchy because people often use different definitions, sometimes in the same conversation.
Nope. Feminism is about valuing people as people, regardless of what gender roles tell us about how to judge them. What you're talking about is a gender role, which is explicitly what feminism is against.
Men certainly aren't valued for being masculine, but what are they valued for, beyond what they can provide to other people? Nothing. Feminism took away the roles but didn't replace it with anything useful for men and valuable to others.
In a world without gender roles, men (and women and non-binary folks) would be valued just for being human. That is, everyone has value, even if they don't provide "value" (which is subjective and changing anyway) to others.
Male spaces. The freedom to vent about male issues.
Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women! And so on. But when men tries to get a place in female spaces they just say "go make your own, don't depend on women for everything!", as if they let men make their own spaces...
Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so?
And lastly they are practicing a lot of toxic masculinity. If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!". Those are examples of toxic masculinity, they fail to acknowledge that there are actually a lot of weak men out there who would benefit greatly from having greater access to these things. But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine.
"But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side. How can that be taken as anything but toxic masculinity? If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.
There are a lot of strawman arguments here. I've never heard feminists say any of these things because they are antithetical to the concept of equality for all. I'm a feminist, and asking for men's spaces is something I do. Feminists want spaces for men. Feminists want people to bring up male issues. Feminists don't want men to be stoic.
> If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.
There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.
> I've never heard feminists say any of these things because they are antithetical to the concept of equality for all.
No true Scotsman there. It is true that people who say that aren't for equality, but they still call themselves feminists and feminists still welcome them as their own. That is the point, feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement. Your movement gets colored by the rotten apples in it, just like mens right has a lot of bad apples so do feminism, and what those bad apples do will also get attributed to feminism even if you think it shouldn't.
> There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.
You say it is men and women together here, but why do they just blame men for this? Most men live with a woman just as most women live with a man. The woman is his closest link, she is what affects him the most, if she practices toxic masculinity then there isn't much he can do. And as most men have experienced women like that they will teach their kids and each other that they have to be stoic and not cry, since otherwise women will not see them as a man. Sure, there are women out there who can accept a man who cries and do it well. But, as long as there are lots of toxic women out there who refuses to let a man cry there isn't much men can do, the "men don't cry" will live on as long as such women exists. And feminism doesn't try to do anything at all about those women.
I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_. It's a pretty objective definition, as these are the grounding principles of the movement.
> feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement
You keep bringing this up, but you haven't provided proof. Whereas people blaming women (instead of cultural sexism as a whole that's practiced by both men and women, and therefore the target of feminism) for their problems has plenty of proof in the comments here.
To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.
And finally, if you believe in equality, then let's champion it. Even if you believe that women are making it hard for you, positively commend those who are behaving in an equitable way, and the same for men who are behavior in an equitable way. _We_ get to decide how the world should be. Let's make it happen!
> To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.
But they don't reject the "kill all men" people. That is just a harmless joke apparently. And I bet you will defend that statement right now, since way too many feminists have defended it and if you accept that the phrase is bad then you admit that you are wrong. Maybe we need a "MERF" terminology, Male Exclusionary Radical Feminists to denote the bad apples you say aren't really feminists? But until that term appears and the movement actually takes a stance the movement wont be for everyone.
> I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_
Right, just take their marketing material. Also, you know, Trump really just wanted to make America great again, that is what he said, why should we look at what he actually do instead of just listening to a slogan?
>But they don't reject the "kill all men" people. That is just a harmless joke apparently.
Because it is a joke. Remember when women started killing men in mass numbers? Oh wait no, that isn't a thing. But we can absolutely point to countless times that men have killed and harmed women.
>Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women!
Oh yes, I totally remember the Feminist Jihad of 2016 when women rose up and destroyed Video Games forever!
Do you think that having diversity in video games, both in the creation and consumption of it is somehow destroying video games? If so that is your own sexism talking.
>as if they let men make their own spaces...
Men are free to make their own spaces. They do it all the time actually.
>Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so?
I can still complain about women. So can you. Feminists haven't stopped that. Unless by complain and let out steam about women you mean being misogynistic, then yeah that's your own sexism talking.
>If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!".
Emphasis on "how you did here" because what you are doing is creating straw men and being sexist. However men are free to talk about male issues. https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib
Also, feminists aren't saying the shit you claim they are saying about men there. Not all women are feminists. Especially since you are claiming that
>But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine.
Because feminists do not want men to be Stoics. They literally want men to talk about their issues, their emotions, and their wants and desires. The opposite of stoicism.
>But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side.
Again, I question if you've ever actually talked to a feminist before. I cry in front of my wife all the time. Feminists do not want men to be strong to the point of not wanting them to have emotions. That's not what feminism is about, at all. That's a prime example of internalized patriarchy on the part of the woman. You seem to think that feminist === woman. That is not at all the case.
This notion is offensive to some men, including myself, because along all this seemingly good natured talk often comes a negation of how the majority of men actually feel and express their feelings and a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic. And there is some hypocrisy in claiming to be welcoming and accepting of men while insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way.
In my experience, the majority of men behave naturally in a traditionally masculine way and are comfortable expressing themselves this way. It doesn't mean they are any less emotionally complex than women or emotionally stunted.
Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for. If we're going to worry about men and their emotions then let's make sure we actually do it for the sake of men, in a way that is adapted to the way men feel and express themselves.
You probably won't see this since it's been so long but...
> a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic
There's a bunch to unpack here.
First, I never used any such terms. All I did was say that it's weird to me that some men react so strongly to what other men are doing, as if it offends them personally. That's actually a segue into the next part...
You said that there's a redefinition or relabeling of masculine identify as toxic. I don't think it's masculine identity, but a set of behaviors and patterns.
As an example, why would it bother Joe if Bob goes to a meeting where he's talking about his own feelings? Why does Joe feel personally attacked for that? And if Joe's response is "That's GIRLY!" and thus something to distanced from, again, why? Why is Joe's idea of masculinity so narrow as not to include Bob's expression.
That's what toxic masculinity is, it's the idea that masculinity has to be a very narrow thing and that we (men) must perform it within very tight parameters.
> insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way.
Do you actually see this and have experienced it? This isn't a hyperbolic question, because it hasn't been my experience.
> Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for
That is also not my experience. Women can engage in the same toxic attitudes as men and perpetuate the same rigid gender roles. We see it throughout society, in all socio-economic statuses, and generally.
"Boys don't cry" still exists, and "Boys will be boys" exists (though less than it did when I was a a child).
We still see men valued by their economic statuses, and their ability to suppress emotion.
And we still see unconventional expressions of masculinity as the butt of jokes in mainstream culture, such as Drax in the Marvel movies, Boyle in Brooklyn 99, and the entire male cast of the Big Bang Theory.
Not masculine identity, but behaviors and thought patterns.
I had difficulty understanding this and found the term "toxic masculinit
The big issue is that the only spaces like this are either small, private friend groups (e.g. my waterfowl hunting buddies who occasionally get their martial gripes off their chest while out in the duck blind) or public groups/businesses/organizations that inevitably are forced to integrate and become co-ed by outside pressure (defeating the whole point). I disagree with the article's claim that the thing stopping male-only support groups from existing is internal toxicity. I think that external criticism, sometimes unwarranted or malicious criticism from those who have an ideological bone to pick with men's issues or men in general, is a larger barrier.
But we men are also pretty coy about some of these things - if I'm running a men's divorce support group, but I tell everyone it's a golf club? Well of course people are going to assume it's a golf club.
It's definitely not only his perception. Most men don't want to talk about their issues publicly with strangers, who might not even be health care professionals.
And I like to just point out that implying that it's just him is both humiliating and toxic.
>And I like to just point out that implying that it's just him is both humiliating and toxic.
You made an assertion about "most men" and then called another person's contradicting view "humiliating and toxic". You are not providing any sort of evidence to support your point through some objective measurement either, you're simply extrapolating your experience onto the majority of men. How is that not humiliating and toxic by your own logic?
I don't think those kind of spaces would be particularly helpful or useful to me either, but when they do pop up in places (like Reddit), they get banned pretty quickly, so they're not available for the sort of people who do.
I'm not sure about what the author (or you) mean by "a space and place". I'm glad to be able to talk to my friends or family about my feelings, but I neither want nor need something like a local LGBT association. I like to keep my feelings for myself and people close to me.
The obvious implication in this discussion, although it's unstated, is that not everyone has people close to them that they feel they can confide in. Maybe their spouse is a basket case and wouldn't be able to handle knowing work was going bad. Maybe their girlfriend has cancer and they know the complaining needs to flow in one direction. Maybe their friends are all slippery ladder climbers and would desert them at the first sign of weakness. You never know.
This seems like an instance of the fallacy where people sort of operate from the premise that men are basically defective women and that following feminine behavior patterns will be helpful for them. It’s sort of tied up with the notion of “toxic masculinity”.
When you hear 'toxic masculinity', do you hear 'the subset of components of traditional masculinity which perpetuate toxicity' or do you hear 'masculinity, which at it's core is toxic'?
If you take a list of traditionally 'manly' activities, like woodworking and growing a beard,
then you subtract everything that women can do just as well as men - there are many skilled female woodworkers, we don't want them to feel unwelcome in the woodworking community, and woodworking doesn't make them any less feminine;
after doing so, your list of 'manly' activities might be quite short
and dominated by the toxic and the tautological, because everything else, like woodworking, has been removed.
Personally I don't see things as that binary, but I can understand why some people might.
There's a spectrum to these things. I imagine that there's a small number of folks who want to sign up for a Slack or Discord with a name like: "Hey fellow men, come talk mental health issues." but I'm in some communities around tech/entrepreneurship where we've formed real friendships and can talk about things like grieving for loved ones, dealing with pandemic induced stress, ADHD, burnout, parenting, elder care etc.
It's not the focus, but having that "space" to vent and to talk honestly with other folks going through the same sorts of things is a benefit to all of us.
I think a lot of this is just friendship. Societally, men are reporting having fewer and fewer people in their lives to talk over important issues with [1] which definitely seems like a problem.
I don't think the post is trying to assert that _every_ man requires such a place or time. You might have excellent coping mechanisms, or indeed are able to manage you emotions through other means.
However not having someone to help you through a tough patch, and allow you to express emotions other than dirty laughs and anger is quite debilitating in my experience
I don't think that the suggestion is that we gather formally in a circle and discuss our feelings. Or indeed act like stereo typical teenage girls where we gossip about other people behind their backs in a high pitched voice.
Just having one person to say: "This is hard, I don't feel like I can do this" and not have to brace for "AHAHAAAA WANKER" in reply, might be be of help to a lot of men.
you dont want a place for men to discuss things? maybe you dont need it but others may. Even manly dudes still want to be able to talk through their ideas. Thats why we had people like socrates, aristotle and plato. Dudes got together to discuss their thoughts because it helped them think more clearly.
You don't need these spaces until you do. Crisis comes up fast, and such a community can be crucial. For some men I think it's just a small group of close knit friends, but for many it just doesn't exist.
I have a group of close knit good friends, but when it came to helping me with mental health in a crisis, they were all absolutely clueless.
Not harmful, but clueless nonetheless. To their credit, they tried to be either supportive or to avoid the subject, so it was at least a relief in that sense.
I chose to seek a professional therapist instead (which helped significantly after a few months)
Like you, I have never desired a space/time to just "let it all out" emotionally.
That being said, there are times I want to really dig deep on a specific thing that is troubling me and I usually just rely on a small cadre of confidants when that happens. And, stereotypically enough, those confidants are all men and we end up "working the problem" rather quickly after the initial exchange of describing how I feel. This, I'm told, is the exact opposite of how you're supposed to listen to someone's problems.
However I know that my personal preference is not universal and doing the 'listen and refrain from offering suggestions' approach is much more comforting for most people.
This is probably a part of it. It took me far too long to learn that my wife had no interest in solving her problems and truly just wanted to talk about them while I listened. I still don't understand why she, or anyone else, would consider that helpful, but for some reason she does. Like you, if there is an issue I just want to troubleshoot it and move on. There is no practical use in just talking about it without action.
> But, I keep seeing these messages that there is something wrong with me for not wanting to create or participate in these types of things.
I didn't see a single sentence in the article-- explicit or implicit-- that made me think the author would find something wrong with someone who doesn't feel the need to utilize such a space.
In fact I'm having a hard time figuring out what could have prompted you to write that sentence.
Digression-- for some reason it reminds me of a friend of mine who said when they moved into an apartment the landlord who was insistent about never putting noodles down the drain of the sink. My friend agreed he would never do that. Then one day when there was a leak in the kitchen sink he called the landlord, who immediately yelled back, "You didn't put any noodles down there, did you?" He assured the landlord that indeed, he had not put any noodles down the drain to cause the leak.
Anyway, I never found out what exactly happened with noodles and drains to cause his landlord to start any and all conversations with that directive. (It was an apartment complex near a university, so the equation most likely involves ramen plus a group of drunk college students.)
This article? No, but I see the same sentiment being expressed in lots of other articles that do say that there is something wrong with you if you don't want to sit around and just talk.
> I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either.
That's because they don't talk about it with you, because you're not interested. It's kind of like if you know any black or gay people or women, they've probably never told you of prejudice they've experienced. It's not an easy subject to broach. But, 100% chance, they have experienced it.
I think people who advocate for these ideas think they'd be useful for some men some of the time.
Much like having a footpump in the garage - you might not need it this day, or even this year. Some people will get through life without ever needing a pump. But if you need to inflate a tyre? You'll be glad to have it. And almost anyone can get a flat tyre.
No, there's nothing wrong with you. The world does not get to tell you that you have to talk about your feelings. If you don't want to, that's fine.
What's wrong is that, if you are male and you do want/need to talk about your feelings, there's no place where you can do it. That's not a problem for you, but for some males, it is.
> I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either
For another perspective, I personally have been thinking of suicide for quite some time now. I would absolutely love to talk about it with people, but I know that I can't for many reasons.
The point is, I am extremely selective of who I let even a small part of that side of me see. Everyone else I know is (hopefully) completely unaware. When I do talk about it with someone, it's because I trust them and they "feel" like they will be understanding of this. Maybe, with no disrespect, you don't fit this criteria for them. I know most of my friends don't.
> Some of that is on men who are already creating communities, for example by adopting the right community rules to ban toxicity and allowing (respectful) discussion of topics like mental health. Often, communities for men are taken over by trolls shifting the conversation to blaming women, instead of focusing on the problems men face in an overly gendered society.
This is the biggest barrier to getting men's issue into the broader public discourse. It is frustratingly difficult to gain any traction and form communities for men's issues because men's rights appropriating misogynists use them as lightning rods organize and "legitimize" their crude hatred of women. Feminism has the same problem but managed to reach critical mass in large part by leveraging academia as a way to organize, raise the quality of the discourse and distribute it. It's fundamentally an education and exclusion problem. You need the history and literature to be taught and known by a large body of people so the movement can identify and shake off the nutjobs.
Though I somewhat agree with you, I can't help but think there's a bit of a double standard here with man-hating being taken less seriously than woman-hating. In the linked wapost article, there is even an anecdote where the trans man hears a woman saying "men are such a-holes" on the bus, and how the author is certain the situation would have played out very differently if the genders were reversed.
Support communities for men probably attract men who are disillusioned with women, in the same way support communities for women are likely to attract women who are disillusioned with men. Is it any surprise the conversation is going to drift at some point to less-than-charitable over-generalizations about the other sex? (e.g. among sexual assault survivors)
I do think there is a point there though, because there is a subtle difference between an emotional overgeneralization made by a sympathetic victim (which is probably not a good idea to censor if you want to actually help these men), and more insidious misogyny. It doesn't help that the former is sometimes purposefully mischaracterized as the latter by opponents of men's issues, however.
Interestingly, the early suffragette movement didn't do a great job of shaking off the nutjobs. The violent rump is acknowledged in academia even now. As an example, the famed SCUM manifesto is a vile and hateful piece of work, and its author was convicted of attempted murder.
But supposing that your message is not vile and hateful, the trick is to ignore the lies that people spread about you and speak the reasonable truth until you build a core audience. (Having fuck you money helps.) You will be labelled as a nutjob and outcast, but who cares, if your message is getting out?
I'm not really convinced by the content of the article but I'm not sure that I could provide useful or constructive criticism about that, so I'll leave that part out and focus on sharing something that helped me recently.
I've always tried to be reliable and here for people around me, but had a very hard time talking about my problems. I thought that in a way I was doing a favor to these people by "giving" and not "taking". It turns out that it wasn't true, and that you need a level of reciprocity for a healthy relationship. These days I try to open more to my friends about my problems and struggles, and I feel better thanks to that.
I'm not sure I have useful advice on how to meet new people though. This is a part I'll try to explore a bit more in the coming years.
I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged yet! Maybe because it's pro-man? Apparently stories about diversity and inclusion are downranked on HN (which, if true, is a pretty bad indictment of HN). https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#implic...
Users often flag stories when they think they have a high risk of turning into a flamewar. I know I do. This article seems reasonable and the initial comments were relatively constructive, so maybe this one will go well.
Why would you flag a story before it becomes a flamewar? That just buries anything that's difficult to talk about, even if it's necessary that we talk about it.
Because I don't want to see a flamewar on HN, and by the time the war has started it's too late.
As shown by this submission, it doesn't automatically bury things that are hard to talk about, it just means the submission has to generate much more light than heat, which is hard to do.
There is a "hide" button next to the "flag" button if you don't want to see it. Flagging a story just because you don't want to see it is one of those things that causes HN to be worse, like downvoting a comment if one disagrees with an opinion, rather than because it's not following the HN guidelines. If it has become a flamewar, that's worth flagging, but preemptive flagging will end up reinforcing bias (like the trend of inclusion & diversity posts disappearing)
Not so surprising to me, it's about DINC without being political, and using transgender folks as a sort of A/B test is more intellectually stimulating than the Nth discussion about web technologies, at least to me. Perhaps others agree.
Imagine someone mutilating your junk at birth and nobody taking offense or seriously believing that’s wrong, downplaying and mocking your concerns of autonomy.
…Welcome to earth little man, it’s only going to get worse from here.
Also, I 100% agree with the people who don't believe it's wrong. I'm very happy to be circumsized and am glad my parents got it done while I was young.
That's a problem localized to a select few countries, luckily. Sadly, in some countries women still face similar (but often much worse) mutilations as well.
It's sad that these barbaric practices are still tolerated, but it's not exclusively a male problem.
However, in my social circle everyone agrees that all kinds of genital mutilation is bad, unless they're done out of medical necessity of course. I haven't personally met anyone who's in favor of doing this to kids. It seems to be purely an American and a religious practice to still do such things.
I strongly oppose all types, but the symbolic pin-prick variant that is practiced in some places seems to me to be far less of a "mutilation" than ordinary male circumcision. And yet it is considered "female genital mutilation". Now I think that we can all agree that the worst types of FGM are completely deserving of the term mutilation, but it has always struck me as a very double standard that a pin prick that has probably healed completely in a few days is called a mutilation, but literally cutting off a large part of the foreskin, leaving a permanent scar, is not.
> "What continues to strike me is the significant reduction in friendliness and kindness now extended to me in public spaces. It now feels as though I am on my own: No one, outside of family and close friends, is paying any attention to my well-being."
That hits close. That's how I have felt my entire life, and when I expressed anything else as a child I got "be a man". Now that I'm a an adult about to early retire, I'm thankful for that capacity to bear down and focus, but given my gout I wonder at what cost.
I’ve noticed a difference in strangers’ friendliness when I’m clean-shaven vs bearded. To the point where if I notice more negative interactions with strangers, I’ll shave, and it immediately gets better.
It's funny, I've noticed something similar but it varies on the looks of the beard, and isn't a binary beard/no-beard situation. If I have it too short, people seem intimidated, if I have it longer and less trimmed, people seem a bit more fearful rather than intimidated. If I have it sort of medium length, but in a nice shape, people are probably the friendliest. If I have a really long, like wizard beard, then a different set of humanity is more friendly.
I am a large burly man with a beard. I noticed right away that my interactions with people completely changed when I got glasses maybe 5 years ago. Way more random conversations with people in public. Way more friendly looks. It's very interesting.
In my eyes there is another factor that makes society difficult. Until today men are supposed to be big, muscular and strong. This often equals with strength, being an alpha and masculine. While women already evolved to being fat, short, tall, no matter what and yet to be accepted, being sexy, being strong and beautiful, men are not. If you are a fat guy, a short guy, a skinny guy.. anything else but tall, strong, muscular, then you are not considered an alpha male.
Yes, this does not apply to all environments, but I see this in my professional life WAY TOO OFTEN. Going out to clubs or bars, being invited to house parties - it is always the same story.
I say that the beauty ideal towards men MUST change asap: skinny should be better than muscular. Less aggressive hormones, less violence, less toxic masculinity.
All I can say is that this really doesn't match my experience at all. Not to mention that the whole Alpha/Beta/Gamma thing has been debunked for wolves[1] and was never really proven for humans.
I think women have it far worse in terms of how narrowly societal standards of "beautiful" are constructed. This has only started to change recently and mostly in a superficial way.
What you're describing is a cultural stereotype. The same type of stereotype that is applied often to women; that they all have to have big tits, a small waist, pretty face with lots of makeup, plunging neck line, skirt, flat stomach, be submissive, smile often, etc etc. The truth is that stereotype is mostly just pushed by people trying to make money; most people don't use that as their standard to find a partner.
I think you've internalized your own version of a standard you think everybody else holds men accountable to, but it's an illusion. The majority of human society does not require all men conform to an 'alpha male' persona, and different societies also have different ways of performing masculinity. Furthermore, if you go to a club, bar, house party, work, etc, there will be lots of people with different ideas about what is attractive in a man, and most of them will not be the ideal that you've set yourself up to believe.
Please, go to therapy and talk about these issues. I swear to you that the problem is not with everyone else, it is the way you are looking at the world and yourself.
Size is not correlated with aggressiveness at all. In Hungary, the larger guys have a reputation of being gentler - supposedly because their size successfully signals strength and security, they don't need to actively prove themselves. This too is of course just a perception. In reality it's a combination of nature and nurture, with not a large degree of predictability. To illustrate, I looked at a random article of serial killers listed by weight. Not a lot a high numbers.
It's true that certain things are tougher on men than women. Obviously the reverse is true to a larger extent.
However, I think "traditional masculinity" is mostly positive. Men are taught to deal with their problems on a personal level, suck it up, not blame external factors, and so on. Being tough is a good thing. No man is an island, but everyone (man and woman) should strive to be a promontory. Blaming society or culture or your parents or the world or God is usually not useful, even if it's true.
For these reasons, I find it a little disturbing when people start talking about "support systems for men" or when men are pushed to "be vulnerable and talk about our feelings". We have to thread a needle here: we should help people who cannot make it on their own but we also need to acculturate people to take responsibility for their lives, for their choices, for mistakes and failures. It's very hard to help people who struggle without making them weaker. One way it may be possible is for parents (and society) to be hard on kids while they're young but gradually ease up on them as they age. Being tough on a 5 year old is likely to help him. Being tough on a 30 year old who has mostly finished developing may just be cruel.
Being tough and self reliant is great. Those qualities are not abrogated in the slightest by being able to talk with others about your internal experience. You can help yourself by doing so and also help those around you in the process.
The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
> Being tough and self reliant is great. Those qualities are not abrogated in the slightest by being able to talk with others about your internal experience. You can help yourself by doing so and also help those around you in the process.
My experience is that, yes, toughness is abrogated by "talking with others about your internal experience". Internal experience is subjective. No one but artists can really share it and when we try, we mostly just whine.
> The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
No one is immune to anything. Being tough is a huge advantage and the way you make people tough is by being hard on them. "Being hard on" is not abuse. There's room for compassion and love. But, today, as far as my experience goes, we're too far on the coddling side of things.
This is a very interesting viewpoint! If by tough you mean teaching him to be self sufficient, to overcome his problems, to do the best he can totally agree. To use a concrete example teach him to tie his shoes, but don't do it for him. I think what is not good and what I have sometimes seen is parents yelling at a 5 year old for having his shoes untied or making some small error.
Completely agree about threading the needle. When I was young, men never talked about feelings. I grew up competent and successful, but also drank heavily to deal with anxiety. I didn't even know what anxiety was, that stuff just wasn't talked about when I was young. I agree though we can go too far and coddle people. This stuff is hard!
The problem is that traditional masculinity isn't traditional. I suspect that most people think of it as stoical silence. But I don't think thats universal.
Reading brideshead revisited(1945), the whole thing is stuffed with what one might would call "overly emotional men" but that same generation is marked as the "greatest" in the UK.
I really don't think its helpful to anyone to basically say: "here kid, you're on your own, if you can't solve it, we just keep quiet" Sure, discipline is key, but thats not the same as emotional repression. Its perfectly possible to be honest about your emotional state to someone, be stoic, self reliant and disciplined.
I think the big problem is that people think that masculinity is about repression of everything apart from getting sex and money. Any deviation is treated as weakness.
On the flip side, a woman with ambition, drive and leadership is treated like an anathema. Just as a man who cries in public.
The coin flips both ways and I can't find an argument for it being useful to wider society
All this messaging, if it's to be of any use, has to come with some sort of challenge attached to it. For oversocialized professionals, "be vulnerable and talk about our feelings," is no challenge at all; they've been doing it all their lives. For these sorts, the discourse around mental health/modern masculinity arms them with an array of manipulative techniques and stymies genuine personal/social development. There is absolutely a need to cultivate sangfroid.
But I'm not sure how many men the above paragraph actually applies to. When you live online, it's easy to forget how, uh, primal the world can be for so many guys. I know people with good reasons to be happy, but due to some emasculating hangup (domineering father, absent father, bad dating history, height, etc), they view life through such a paranoid lens, seeing every interaction as some sort of competition. To them, letting one's guard down, stepping away from these masculine expectations, and being open about their fears still presents a legitimate challenge with legitimate reward.
This discourse seems tired because the demographic that needs it the least engages with it the most.
You make a good point. I'm more familiar with "oversocialized professionals" but the world is big and full of people, some of whom take masculinity too far. Hell, I read a Norman Mailer novel last week...
> there was a space and place you could talk about your feelings. In the last, you know, 10 years or so [post-transition] I can’t find those spaces necessarily for men, and I don’t know if men necessarily make those spaces for each other.
We do, we just don't put labels on it, it's informal, usually unscheduled and happens in various context and settings. You're out doing X and topic Y comes up. I personally don't like the topic of safe-spaces because no space is truly safe when you discuss actual dark or contrarian thoughts.
Having strict gender definitions isn’t good for anyone. I’m looking forward to people getting to be people, both emotionally supported and taken seriously at work.
When I think of spaces for men I think of my lounge, not some community centre club. I think of having a bonfire with friends. That is what I think of when I hear "a space and place".
Weirdly I guess it isn't about the space or the place. For me it is about listening, showing interest, talking a little less, not judging, and not avoiding awkwardness with jokes.
It is easy to make these spaces, you don't even need to find a space. Just listen.
I believe women should be in charge of everything. Let us men draw shit, play music, watch flowers unfold, design crazy trains. Let the women sort out the details. (not saying that every woman and every man should be cubbiholed into this, but in my experience, the girls do a much better job of getting along and running things, and the men just want to experiment and think up new ways of having fun.)
Society sees the success of outlier men and concludes that men overall have the better of the lives.
The truth is that the majority of males in nature and in society, on average, has a worse lives because the dynamic of being a male causes a feast for a few and a famine for most.
Genetics gambles more with males than females because males can produce, rarely, a very large genetic return that females can't. This is easily explained by the rate limit of children for females but not for males.
This shows up in intelligence, strength, genetic disorders, etc. Male genetics are just more varied.
The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few.
I know this is a sensitive subject but it would be nice to have a real conversation about it.
There's a lot of evidence that males are, on average, the more miserable of the sexes but their misery is ugly and ignored. They die sooner by suicide and drug overdose. They have less friends, and are more depressed. There's a lot of reasons for this but I believe genetics is at the core.
Society could help here by recognizing this and trying to push against it - promoting a more social man, for example. But the predisposition is here to stay.
Individually, I'd say being more compassionate and outgoing to those creepy/ugly/weird males is something we all should think to do. Society seems to give us a pass at being not nice to these guys. I certainly don't think it's right though I admit guilt at times here.
The clearest statistics which (may) demonstrate this point are that 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and only 6.8% of incarcerated people are women. There are far more men in prison than leading successful companies.
It occurs to me that "men are socialized to be aggressive (and are rewarded for aggression, unlike women), and aggressive social traits translate well to both criminal and business enterprises" has equal explanatory power but is significantly more parsimonious than the variability hypothesis.
This is obviously correct, at least with respect to prisoners.
It also does not require that male aggression be socialized—it holds equally well if it's innate.
Sure. But again, parsimony: we have lots of evidence for aggressive male socialization (including decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian), and relatively little reproducible evidence for innate male aggression.
Decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian would seem to be evidence for the _opposite_ of "aggressive male socialization". And that points to the baseline level of male aggression being higher than it is in egalitarian societies.
> Decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian would seem to be evidence for the _opposite_ of "aggressive male socialization".
It's evidence for an opposite social trend, not evidence of the total absence of aggressive socialization either presently or historically.
Aggression as a word is socially context dependent. People can be competing aggressively at a donation drive about who can donate the highest amount of money to charity.
The distinction between innate vs socialized becomes a bit muddy when dealing with humans.
Your own link shows that meta-analyses consistently fail to reveal the various hypotheses presented under the "variability hypothesis" umbrella[1].
I say "umbrella" because the various researchers who advocate for the hypothesis tend to play fast and loose with which traits, exactly, are under consideration. Research shows that technical traits don't vary between natal genders? Move on to the next!
That is one piece of research that does dispute the claim among many that confirm it.
About that particular piece of research, the wiki article states (I don't know where to confirm it) "However, in the analysis the datasets from universities were discarded as they were considered possibly biased and insufficient. Instead only data from schools was used for the analysis."
This unfortunately is quite a political topic and, as such, research here can be politically motivated (for and against) so it is tough to break through the noise.
> That is one piece of research that does dispute the claim among many that confirm it.
That is precisely what a meta-analysis does: it takes all of the individual datapoints, and attempts to find a consistent causative relationship. The absence of one is a strong indicator that the individual pieces of research are varyingly flawed.
Science, in its majesty, is never fully settled. But meta-analysis consistently show that each of the individual variability hypothesis are bunk.
That is for high school students, at that point the ceiling is too low to notice any talents. Getting good grades in high school has more to do with consistency than anything else. They talked about university students, but excluded them from the study for a variety of reasons, so it is just for high school students and subjects.
That isn't a particularly satisfying excuse here, given that (1) supposedly innate qualities don't disappear in high school, and (2) the history of human civilization is dominated by cultures in which teenagers are considered adults for the purposes of working, warring, &c. Put another way: the historical record considers "talents" to be present in human beings well into the age at which we send kids to high school in developed, industrialized countries.
High school STEM courses have a very low bar, grades in them doesn't say much about someone. It is more about being careful and never screwing up than being excellent at the material since there are so many easy STEM courses in high school. For example, a lazy genius might get all A's in math but get a B in chemistry. There is no better grade than A in math, so a typical hard working high schooler with A in every course will look better in this study even if the other person is actually way better at math and aces the SAT and places well in math competitions.
And if we do look at stuff like SAT or math competitions then it is basically just men, very few women at the top there. So it looks like women do better when the ceiling is so low that the male variability doesn't show.
The reciprocal of this claim is that STEM classes in college have a high bar, which is a doozy of an assumption. But even this drags us away from the really egregious assumption here, which is that any measured variability is innate rather than socialized.
Society cannot see anything, it's just an abstraction. Let's not confuse government propaganda with reality. The only people who might are 20 yo virgins with a major in STEM. Who should do themselves a favor and internalize all
heartiste had to say before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29236676 catches up with them.
> There's a lot of reasons for this but I believe genetics is at the core.
We could blame estrogen and other sex hormones for making women prioritizing social behavior over other things, but my bet would be on culture. When genetics and environment meet, it is generally differences in environment that create large changes in behavior.
Looking back at the cultural outcome of world war 1 and world war 2, boys were molded to exist in their family until the age of 18. Then they were drafted into the service of the state, and if several years later they survived, form their own family and social life. Girls in contrast could keep their connection with their family, and thus was also expected to do that. This is the historical base for which our current culture is formed from, and while most military drafts are gone the culture has remained to some degree. Boys are still expected to "leave the nest" at early age, and girls are still expected to keep the social connections.
If culture expects women to be social and men to earn money and be independent, it doesn't seem strange that on average women will also be more social and men be more focused on earning money and be independent.
> Male genetics are just more varied. The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few.
I don't understand how this follows.
If we accept for the sake of argument that men are more varied,
then shouldn't that result in more men doing exceptionally badly
or exceptionally well,
but men and women doing the same on average?
If the idea is that life is a winner-take-all game and
everyone but the most intelligent/conscientious/charismatic loses,
then that would mean that even more women than men would lose out,
because they're supposedly more likely to be average than exceptional.
It could be that men are playing a winner-take-all game and women aren't,
but I don't understand how that corresponds with our present reality.
It's true that men are capable of impregnating a lot of women at once,
and that might have affected the evolutionary development of male psychology -- but in Western societies today most relationships are monogamous.
So when we're talking about the happiness of present-day males,
I don't understand how it would be the outcome of a winner-take-all game.
I don't believe men's genetics are more "varied" than women's. In fact I think that's the result of men being promoted more than women and in more disciplines whereas women are expected to be lovers, child-bearers, and live casual lives.
I do believe that it's much worse to be a below-average man than it is to be a below-average women, simply because people are usually more supportive of women. If you're a woman who isn't particularly smart, attractive, or talented, you still have the support of other women (who are usually more friendly) and men (who want to be your boyfriend/husband and take care of you). If you're a below-average man, nobody supports you - women just aren't interested (and you would be expected to take care of them anyways), and other men aren't interested because men are usually less friendly.
I don't think any of the above is very controversial either. In fact most people realize there's an issue with many many miserable men. The main controversy is how to fix this issue. Some lonely / ugly / socially-awkward men are really aggressive and dangerous towards women, and it's hard to tell which ones.
I absolutely agree with you that it would really help if men are less cold around other strange men and try to talk / learn about them. In fact there's not much reason not to be friendly towards other men, or to be scared of them. Unlike with women, a strange man can't necessarily overpower you, and he's unlikely to be creepy towards you, his interest is more likely to be genuine. The main issue IMO is that lots of men just don't care much about talking with strangers, and can't really tell when someone needs human interaction.
I've been a member of a "mens round table" [1]. The organizer was a friend of mine and wanted to include me because (from his point of view) I was doing alright in life [2].
While not the target audience the group comprised mostly young 20-30 yo men, who were searching for their place in life. Bluntly generalizing their problems revolved around insecurity and not finding a partner. Actually most of them dropped out after eventually finding somebody.
Surprisingly (to me), another major issue that was discussed was problems with parents. This expressed in different ways, but was mostly "why don't you have a job/wife/family/house/etc yet?".
[1] "We are not a support group!"
[2] Surprise ... I am not :-)
> In fact there's not much reason not to be friendly towards other men
I get what you mean here, but when I was a kid, I was friends with everybody. It never occurred to me to not be, until I found out that, especially as an adolescent, you're judged by the company you keep (by both boys and girls). If you're friends with a bunch of "losers", you're a loser too. That's a stigma you can't escape, either. I learned in my teens to be way more aloof than I'm naturally inclined to be as a survival tactic.
There's less teenage drama as you get older but in reality it doesn't completely go away: there are still people (especially women) who will avoid you if your associate circle is too unimpressive.
The variability hypothesis hasn't found much support, and some results show the opposite, that females may have more variability. Overall, it seems that variability is basically equal between males and females.
It seems that variability does vary amongst some phenotypes (height, for instance), but there is an equal amount of variability that shows females having it higher in other phenotypes.
I’m surprised there wasn’t any suggestions of positive mens spaces in the OP, nor in the comments. I’d be really interested in participating in more approachable and considerate male spaces. Does anyone have some they can share?
For those interested in a pro-mens issues space, I spend some time on r/menslib subreddit on Reddit [0]. It’s specifically focused on mens issues, but in a way that actively affirms specific movements like feminism, racial equality, and lgbtq progress.
I wasn't sure what kind of response this article would get, so I didn't want to send traffic to MensLib without some further information. I posted the article there already, and I do think that's a great forum. Even then, based on my previous experience, I see some woman-bashing on MensLib sometimes, so I think we need to do even better.
Other than that one, I don't know of other such positive men's spaces.
Yes! This was a central point in my previous article "Why men's health depends on feminism" (https://avikdas.com/2020/11/01/why-mens-health-depends-on-fe...). You might imagine the type of misogynistic responses that one got, so I wanted to directly connect observations to recommendations this time around.
Thank you for writing about these issues from a perspective of affirmation and togetherness rather than negativity. Too many men try to make the issues about blaming some other group or other negative things which just harms ourselves. We need to be able to both separate our issues between different groups and be able to also understand how those issues are correlated (I believe that is the basis for intersectionality).
From the perspective of a straight white man who constantly deals with severe mental health issues, I don't want some kind of space or forum to have my issues heard.
I recognise that my thought process that leads me to conclude that probably falls into the category of "toxic masculinity", but my issues are my own, and, regardless of whether or not I am in a "space" that allows for me to share my feelings, I personally feel that offloading your issues onto people who aren't trained professionals is selfish and can be harmful.
From my perspective, what men need is to be able to destigmatize seeking professional help for mental issues.
Yea, definitely agree! I guess I'm just not comfortable with strangers like therapists and they never let you get to know them, so I can never trust them fully like a close friend.
Sort of, it's a space where someone who is trained to help you can do so.
And I'll admit that it may be a case of I'm not understanding the details of what the original article was meaning, but I read it as "support networks" etc.
I don't want to get together with people, regardless of if they are strangers or friends/family and talk about my problems. Realistically what can they do? More often than not in those spaces it is a lot of listening and empathising. If that makes a person feel better, then I'm all for that. But for me, it comes across as performative caring to make others feel good about "helping" and isn't actually addressing what my issues are or why they make me feel a certain way.
I will say, all of the above is based upon my own experiences and how I feel, and isn't intended as a sweeping claim. I want everyone who has mental health issues to have access to the help they need, and if someone needs the kind of help that involves listening and empathising then they should absolutely have access to that. I'm just not sure based upon my own experience (and the experiences of other men), that a lot of men want the same kind of mental health support that is available to women.
i've often thought that a lot of racial disharmony could be resolved if we could try on each other's skins for a minute. i suppose this is the closest we have to such a thing.
I think some of the problems in society have an obvious causation - we love differently to how we evolved. Whether it be diet, exercise or social circumstances.
I loved the article linked, and I want to read more about trans folks (both directions) and how they saw differences in their lives, personally. Beyond that, I find it very hard to live life as a man (I can't compare to a woman's life, so I won't say theirs is harder or easier on average compared to mine) and I have been a man since birth.
NOTE: I'm not looking for troll comments in replies (or for folks to try and rope me into some toxic anti-something culture/group). I understand this is a sticky subject, so please take the most-positive interpretation of my words below, as I am not a good writer or speaker.
When I recently discovered, at mid-life, that I could have been a stay at home dad, I was amazed that I went through my whole life striving for a career when all I really want is to take care of my home and kids, and have someone else make the money and do the career stuff. It never even occurred to me that I could choose to do the "woman's work" as a full-time homemaker, and find a partner that had a career. Now, I am stuck being the career person for at least another 5 or 10 years (while my wife tries to build a career, which she prefers over home-making) and I have to go through daily crap that I hate, rather than spending all my time with my son and maybe other kids I could have had. I'm just lucky my wife enjoys working and wants to build a career to support our family.
When I got married, my wife didn't want to change her name (for various reasons that are extremely valid) and I didn't mind that. However, I wanted to have the same name as my possible future kids because it's hard to do things like pick them up after school. So, I changed my name to my wife's last name. Lucky for me, the state that I resided in and the state that I was married in were both of the 9 out of 50 (at the time, not sure today) which allowed a man to take the last name of his wife when married (again, I am not sure about same-sex marriages so I can't comment). If not, I would have had to spend thousands and months of my time to change my name. Interestingly, I also had several people comment straight to my face (or behind my back, which I heard about) that me changing my name wasn't what a man did, it wasn't manly, etc.
The biggest issue: I also have trouble finding my own spaces where I can be supported, not even just with other men. Sure, traditionally men gathered in pubs or lodges and they could talk about men's issues, and perhaps those still exist today. However, there is no club or place for a guy like me, who is not into sports or anything, and where I would rather talk about my problems and how to solve them without blaming women, getting crass about sex and women's bodies, or talking about the things I enjoy. Sure, I can go to a game store and talk to folks about my hobbies, or I can discuss things here on HN about tech, but that's not my everyday life. Also, I found that after 10 years with various "professionals", that a therapist is NOT a replacement for friends and an open environment. I want to discuss my issues with stress and anxiety, I want to discuss my marriage issues, and I want to talk about my hobbies with men who won't tell me to divorce my wife, get a girlfriend on the side, or tell me to "suck it up". I basically want to be accepted much like women seem to accept each other, and will just listen to each other even if they don't understand or don't care about some topic. I have tried to make friends with women in groups, but they are always thinking I have ulterior motives, and I don't disagree with their pattern-matching in that area because many men do have ulterior motives for befriending women. When I was in college, one of my favorite things to do was go into the dorm room next door with the 3 women who lived there, and I would sit and talk to them about various topics, I don't even remember what. I never thought about sex or relationships with them, I jus...
185 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadAs I tried to counsel him a bit to help him down from the worry ladder, I thought to myself how scary it is that even despite our current point in history, divorce has rarely if ever worked well for men, and most of what I say to console him is likely meaningless comfort.
With all the problems in the world, worry is what kills the most of us. I manage it by only focusing on what I can control and by staying out of the spotlight of scrutiny and shame as a man myself. It's probably also the reason why I've chosen to not get married unfortunately as well to this day.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/67xa50/why_does_cu...
I've understood early that feminism was not about women but about gender perception.
And the fact that a young female judge ruled in his favor should tell you that society is still improving: feminism was necessary at one point, like BLM currently is, but the goal is not to favor a specific gender or ethnicity (or whatever) but to create a level playing field for all! This is the road to progress!
We aren't there yet, and it will certainly take a long time as social progress is very slow and many cultures and society are extremely conservative - even those you would think beyond that: simply look at how Europe decries what we do here in America as "wokeism", and you'll understand they've still got a long way to go...
However, I see a lot of signs that it's not just a vain hope: the world is improving, on many indicators. It's a slow tide that'll lift all boats. It may hit first those of us who live in America, but everyone will eventually benefit from social progress.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007VJU7C4/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
I like his book "Better Never to Have Been"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
A few weeks ago I wrote that I have British roots and I got flooded with matches.
Not sure of the algorithm was showing my profile more or just girls are racist towards some nations.
I also can't help myself but point out that it is very bad to extrapolate from a sample of outliers.
There might be some lessons to learn from the experience of a few transgender men, but I'm not sure they speak towards the experience of cis gendered men or women, they most likely speak more towards the experience of transgender men.
At least now I understand a bit more the frustration that people feel when they're not represented properly or not taken seriously. That's a nice side effect, and maybe was the whole point of the article. But it still leaves a bad taste.
I understand how one might come to this conclusion but it doesn't appear to be correct. In fact, the vast majority of medical and psychological studies has been conducted on (cis) men. Libraries are filled with the thoughts, stories and reflections of men. If anything, it seems the male experience and physiology has been the default template and has and still does claim the most space.
Therefore, I don't think this post can be considered a common or the only accepted example of how to understand the male experience. To me it was one of a very small number of similar pieces I've encountered online actually. I do think this article can actually be considered interesting due to its novelty but I really don't see how it is presented as _the only_ lense through which we should view male experiences and I don't see how that would be factually correct either.
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
"They (cis-men) are probably not awarded respect and credibility by default because historically they've been the ones causing all the shit."
Here is what I meant, broken down:
"They (cis-men)"
I should have said cis-het-men, so, my bad there. And I am indeed calling out a gigantic swath of people. But that in itself isn't an example of bigotry. Bigotry requires a particular kind of obstinate thought that rejects entirely any alternatives. If you continue reading, I think you'll see that I leave room for other possibilities.
"are probably"
Here's the first hint that the claim I'm making is hedged, as in, I'm not 100% all-in on this belief; there is room for doubt. This doesn't excuse the above generalization, but it's part of an overall supposition that there is a large group of people that the following theory applies to, and not without evidence.
"not awarded respect and credibility by default"
The parent commenter asserted their feeling that "men are awarded so little respect and credibility on the subject of gender issues". What I'm proposing with this line is that men probably can receive respect and credibility on this subject, but that they will need to do something in order to achieve it; that it will not be given to them by default.
"because historically"
Here I'm referencing how historic trends in the actions and speech of these people are what may provide evidence of my claim. By looking at past behavior of the group at large we may find a reason for the parent commenter's feeling. It's not my belief that this state of affairs in inherent to this group of people, but that it's simply been going on for a while.
"they've been the ones causing all the shit"
What I should have said instead was "being insensitive and resistant to discussion of gender issues". The point being that cis-het men in general, in many, many cases throughout history, in probably the majority of cases, have not given the kind of respect and credibility to others in terms of gender issue discussion, that the parent commenter wishes men were given.
I should have explicitly qualified in my comment that I was generalizing and only meant to impune the overall majority of that group of people. Sorry. But, my point remains... men in general will continue to be treated this way, until men in general demonstrate that their perspective has changed.
Search "john wayne racist statement". He made a quote in a 1978 playboy article that is exactly what you are saying.
You even have the 'not everyone' and 'one of the good ones' type statements thrown in that are cliches of things racists say.
I am indeed calling out a gigantic swath of people. But that in itself isn't an example of bigotry.
Yeah it is, it is the definition of bigotry.
The parent commenter asserted their feeling that
'The parent commenter'? That was you.
All this is trying to walk back statements that obviously don't hold up if you swap out any other demographic.
Post all this stuff somewhere else and leave out the name of any demographic and see how it is received.
It is literally taking a demographic that people are born into and saying they deserve to be treated with less respect than other people not in that group.
I don't think that's exactly what's happening here.
As an analogy, look at twin studies: they're undeniably based on "a sample of outliers" in a sense, yet they're also key tools in many sciences because the outlier-ness of the participants isn't [directly related to] what's being measured. Rather, it's an external factor that allows the experimenter to control for other factors that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to account for.
The accounts mentioned in this article are far from an objective result. Yet, who better to understand the differences between how men and women are treated in society than somebody who's existed as both? Assuming they "passed" before and after their transitions (a fair assumption IMO), they offer a unique and highly relevant perspective.
With all the modern political strife around these issues, which includes a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation, I think it's easy to draw certain lines between "trans" and "cis" people that may not have much basis in reality. I'm not trans, but it's my understanding that for many trans people "trans" isn't an identity in principle or practice. Rather, they are—for all useful intents and purposes—representative "members" of the genders they identify with.
Try framing it like this: foreign correspondents. They are from your culture and are able to describe the nub of what its like to be in country x and watch them do something foreign to you.
because they have experienced both things first hand they are able to describe vividly and concisely the differences and attempt to find a cause.
I know that I am not interested in those kinds of spaces. I do not know if this is genetic/nature or cultural/nurture. Either way, I have zero interest in creating or participating in such spaces. I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either.
But, I keep seeing these messages that there is something wrong with me for not wanting to create or participate in these types of things.
It's similar to how some people react to homosexuality as if it reflects on them. "What, there are people who are attracted to the same gender?! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT ME!?!"
There are men who do like such spaces for men, but I've also seen how they can be challenging to maintain. There are a lot of feelings that come up for men, and a lot of toxic thought patterns and habits, as well as patterns that can come up around shaming others who may not feel the same way as the group.
I find also that directly talking can be useful and powerful, but so can community building alongside talking, such as participating in a shared activity- building, gaming, etc.
There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.
love this <3
This is the void feminism left us with: men who provide nothing have no value and are at best invisible and at worst trash you avert your eyes from. It's not obvious that they're wrong.
Thankfully that has begun to change. If you believe women do not feel that way, perhaps it is because of feminism's roots in socialism. Certainly feminism does not say much about the value of unproductive men.
Things are complicated but: men are in charge "correct" definition (I think), superior to women is just the justification it gives for the subjugation of women.
The thing is, not all men are in charge (nor they can be), and all men are the same, so the hierarchy cannot be 2 levels: are you not interested in the ball games? down a notch; don't care to prevaricate anybody for your success? down a notch; wanna talk about feelings? and so on. (oh, bonus: like male supremacy, white supremacy is the justification for keeping non-whites down a few notches).
I'd say it's crystal clear that the patriarchy generates a system of oppression, and men are oppressed in it as well (strict definition of what makes you a real, worthy man) (amounts of oppression may vary, men on average experience less oppression than women, ask your doctor..ahem).
Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women! And so on. But when men tries to get a place in female spaces they just say "go make your own, don't depend on women for everything!", as if they let men make their own spaces...
Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so?
And lastly they are practicing a lot of toxic masculinity. If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!". Those are examples of toxic masculinity, they fail to acknowledge that there are actually a lot of weak men out there who would benefit greatly from having greater access to these things. But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine.
"But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side. How can that be taken as anything but toxic masculinity? If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.
> If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.
There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.
No true Scotsman there. It is true that people who say that aren't for equality, but they still call themselves feminists and feminists still welcome them as their own. That is the point, feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement. Your movement gets colored by the rotten apples in it, just like mens right has a lot of bad apples so do feminism, and what those bad apples do will also get attributed to feminism even if you think it shouldn't.
> There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.
You say it is men and women together here, but why do they just blame men for this? Most men live with a woman just as most women live with a man. The woman is his closest link, she is what affects him the most, if she practices toxic masculinity then there isn't much he can do. And as most men have experienced women like that they will teach their kids and each other that they have to be stoic and not cry, since otherwise women will not see them as a man. Sure, there are women out there who can accept a man who cries and do it well. But, as long as there are lots of toxic women out there who refuses to let a man cry there isn't much men can do, the "men don't cry" will live on as long as such women exists. And feminism doesn't try to do anything at all about those women.
> feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement
You keep bringing this up, but you haven't provided proof. Whereas people blaming women (instead of cultural sexism as a whole that's practiced by both men and women, and therefore the target of feminism) for their problems has plenty of proof in the comments here.
To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.
And finally, if you believe in equality, then let's champion it. Even if you believe that women are making it hard for you, positively commend those who are behaving in an equitable way, and the same for men who are behavior in an equitable way. _We_ get to decide how the world should be. Let's make it happen!
But they don't reject the "kill all men" people. That is just a harmless joke apparently. And I bet you will defend that statement right now, since way too many feminists have defended it and if you accept that the phrase is bad then you admit that you are wrong. Maybe we need a "MERF" terminology, Male Exclusionary Radical Feminists to denote the bad apples you say aren't really feminists? But until that term appears and the movement actually takes a stance the movement wont be for everyone.
> I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_
Right, just take their marketing material. Also, you know, Trump really just wanted to make America great again, that is what he said, why should we look at what he actually do instead of just listening to a slogan?
Because it is a joke. Remember when women started killing men in mass numbers? Oh wait no, that isn't a thing. But we can absolutely point to countless times that men have killed and harmed women.
No, it isn't. You are just imagining that woman and feminist are synonyms. They are not.
Oh yes, I totally remember the Feminist Jihad of 2016 when women rose up and destroyed Video Games forever!
Do you think that having diversity in video games, both in the creation and consumption of it is somehow destroying video games? If so that is your own sexism talking.
>as if they let men make their own spaces...
Men are free to make their own spaces. They do it all the time actually.
>Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so?
I can still complain about women. So can you. Feminists haven't stopped that. Unless by complain and let out steam about women you mean being misogynistic, then yeah that's your own sexism talking.
>If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!".
Emphasis on "how you did here" because what you are doing is creating straw men and being sexist. However men are free to talk about male issues. https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib
Also, feminists aren't saying the shit you claim they are saying about men there. Not all women are feminists. Especially since you are claiming that
>But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine.
Because feminists do not want men to be Stoics. They literally want men to talk about their issues, their emotions, and their wants and desires. The opposite of stoicism.
>But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side.
Again, I question if you've ever actually talked to a feminist before. I cry in front of my wife all the time. Feminists do not want men to be strong to the point of not wanting them to have emotions. That's not what feminism is about, at all. That's a prime example of internalized patriarchy on the part of the woman. You seem to think that feminist === woman. That is not at all the case.
In my experience, the majority of men behave naturally in a traditionally masculine way and are comfortable expressing themselves this way. It doesn't mean they are any less emotionally complex than women or emotionally stunted.
Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for. If we're going to worry about men and their emotions then let's make sure we actually do it for the sake of men, in a way that is adapted to the way men feel and express themselves.
> a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic
There's a bunch to unpack here.
First, I never used any such terms. All I did was say that it's weird to me that some men react so strongly to what other men are doing, as if it offends them personally. That's actually a segue into the next part...
You said that there's a redefinition or relabeling of masculine identify as toxic. I don't think it's masculine identity, but a set of behaviors and patterns.
As an example, why would it bother Joe if Bob goes to a meeting where he's talking about his own feelings? Why does Joe feel personally attacked for that? And if Joe's response is "That's GIRLY!" and thus something to distanced from, again, why? Why is Joe's idea of masculinity so narrow as not to include Bob's expression.
That's what toxic masculinity is, it's the idea that masculinity has to be a very narrow thing and that we (men) must perform it within very tight parameters.
> insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way.
Do you actually see this and have experienced it? This isn't a hyperbolic question, because it hasn't been my experience.
> Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for
That is also not my experience. Women can engage in the same toxic attitudes as men and perpetuate the same rigid gender roles. We see it throughout society, in all socio-economic statuses, and generally.
"Boys don't cry" still exists, and "Boys will be boys" exists (though less than it did when I was a a child).
We still see men valued by their economic statuses, and their ability to suppress emotion.
And we still see unconventional expressions of masculinity as the butt of jokes in mainstream culture, such as Drax in the Marvel movies, Boyle in Brooklyn 99, and the entire male cast of the Big Bang Theory.
Not masculine identity, but behaviors and thought patterns.
I had difficulty understanding this and found the term "toxic masculinit
But we men are also pretty coy about some of these things - if I'm running a men's divorce support group, but I tell everyone it's a golf club? Well of course people are going to assume it's a golf club.
Men (I am a men) have sought out places to discuss feelings, feelings of apathy or tiredness, feelings of the expectations of society.
These places are called pubs, social clubs and I believe it's the basis of some "lodges" (as parodied in the stonecutters episode of the Simpsons).
These places would likely not exist if it wasn’t for this need.
And I like to just point out that implying that it's just him is both humiliating and toxic.
You made an assertion about "most men" and then called another person's contradicting view "humiliating and toxic". You are not providing any sort of evidence to support your point through some objective measurement either, you're simply extrapolating your experience onto the majority of men. How is that not humiliating and toxic by your own logic?
There's an enormous amount of truth to the "men will do ____ instead of going to therapy" meme.
If you take a list of traditionally 'manly' activities, like woodworking and growing a beard,
then you subtract everything that women can do just as well as men - there are many skilled female woodworkers, we don't want them to feel unwelcome in the woodworking community, and woodworking doesn't make them any less feminine;
after doing so, your list of 'manly' activities might be quite short
and dominated by the toxic and the tautological, because everything else, like woodworking, has been removed.
Personally I don't see things as that binary, but I can understand why some people might.
do you wanna talk about it?
It's not the focus, but having that "space" to vent and to talk honestly with other folks going through the same sorts of things is a benefit to all of us.
I think a lot of this is just friendship. Societally, men are reporting having fewer and fewer people in their lives to talk over important issues with [1] which definitely seems like a problem.
1 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038995
However not having someone to help you through a tough patch, and allow you to express emotions other than dirty laughs and anger is quite debilitating in my experience
I don't think that the suggestion is that we gather formally in a circle and discuss our feelings. Or indeed act like stereo typical teenage girls where we gossip about other people behind their backs in a high pitched voice.
Just having one person to say: "This is hard, I don't feel like I can do this" and not have to brace for "AHAHAAAA WANKER" in reply, might be be of help to a lot of men.
Not harmful, but clueless nonetheless. To their credit, they tried to be either supportive or to avoid the subject, so it was at least a relief in that sense.
I chose to seek a professional therapist instead (which helped significantly after a few months)
That being said, there are times I want to really dig deep on a specific thing that is troubling me and I usually just rely on a small cadre of confidants when that happens. And, stereotypically enough, those confidants are all men and we end up "working the problem" rather quickly after the initial exchange of describing how I feel. This, I'm told, is the exact opposite of how you're supposed to listen to someone's problems.
However I know that my personal preference is not universal and doing the 'listen and refrain from offering suggestions' approach is much more comforting for most people.
I didn't see a single sentence in the article-- explicit or implicit-- that made me think the author would find something wrong with someone who doesn't feel the need to utilize such a space.
In fact I'm having a hard time figuring out what could have prompted you to write that sentence.
Digression-- for some reason it reminds me of a friend of mine who said when they moved into an apartment the landlord who was insistent about never putting noodles down the drain of the sink. My friend agreed he would never do that. Then one day when there was a leak in the kitchen sink he called the landlord, who immediately yelled back, "You didn't put any noodles down there, did you?" He assured the landlord that indeed, he had not put any noodles down the drain to cause the leak.
Anyway, I never found out what exactly happened with noodles and drains to cause his landlord to start any and all conversations with that directive. (It was an apartment complex near a university, so the equation most likely involves ramen plus a group of drunk college students.)
That's because they don't talk about it with you, because you're not interested. It's kind of like if you know any black or gay people or women, they've probably never told you of prejudice they've experienced. It's not an easy subject to broach. But, 100% chance, they have experienced it.
Much like having a footpump in the garage - you might not need it this day, or even this year. Some people will get through life without ever needing a pump. But if you need to inflate a tyre? You'll be glad to have it. And almost anyone can get a flat tyre.
What's wrong is that, if you are male and you do want/need to talk about your feelings, there's no place where you can do it. That's not a problem for you, but for some males, it is.
> I don't know of any man in my family, friend, coworker, or acquaintance circles who would be interested either
For another perspective, I personally have been thinking of suicide for quite some time now. I would absolutely love to talk about it with people, but I know that I can't for many reasons.
The point is, I am extremely selective of who I let even a small part of that side of me see. Everyone else I know is (hopefully) completely unaware. When I do talk about it with someone, it's because I trust them and they "feel" like they will be understanding of this. Maybe, with no disrespect, you don't fit this criteria for them. I know most of my friends don't.
This is the biggest barrier to getting men's issue into the broader public discourse. It is frustratingly difficult to gain any traction and form communities for men's issues because men's rights appropriating misogynists use them as lightning rods organize and "legitimize" their crude hatred of women. Feminism has the same problem but managed to reach critical mass in large part by leveraging academia as a way to organize, raise the quality of the discourse and distribute it. It's fundamentally an education and exclusion problem. You need the history and literature to be taught and known by a large body of people so the movement can identify and shake off the nutjobs.
Support communities for men probably attract men who are disillusioned with women, in the same way support communities for women are likely to attract women who are disillusioned with men. Is it any surprise the conversation is going to drift at some point to less-than-charitable over-generalizations about the other sex? (e.g. among sexual assault survivors)
I do think there is a point there though, because there is a subtle difference between an emotional overgeneralization made by a sympathetic victim (which is probably not a good idea to censor if you want to actually help these men), and more insidious misogyny. It doesn't help that the former is sometimes purposefully mischaracterized as the latter by opponents of men's issues, however.
But supposing that your message is not vile and hateful, the trick is to ignore the lies that people spread about you and speak the reasonable truth until you build a core audience. (Having fuck you money helps.) You will be labelled as a nutjob and outcast, but who cares, if your message is getting out?
I've always tried to be reliable and here for people around me, but had a very hard time talking about my problems. I thought that in a way I was doing a favor to these people by "giving" and not "taking". It turns out that it wasn't true, and that you need a level of reciprocity for a healthy relationship. These days I try to open more to my friends about my problems and struggles, and I feel better thanks to that.
I'm not sure I have useful advice on how to meet new people though. This is a part I'll try to explore a bit more in the coming years.
As shown by this submission, it doesn't automatically bury things that are hard to talk about, it just means the submission has to generate much more light than heat, which is hard to do.
…Welcome to earth little man, it’s only going to get worse from here.
Also, I 100% agree with the people who don't believe it's wrong. I'm very happy to be circumsized and am glad my parents got it done while I was young.
It's sad that these barbaric practices are still tolerated, but it's not exclusively a male problem.
However, in my social circle everyone agrees that all kinds of genital mutilation is bad, unless they're done out of medical necessity of course. I haven't personally met anyone who's in favor of doing this to kids. It seems to be purely an American and a religious practice to still do such things.
That hits close. That's how I have felt my entire life, and when I expressed anything else as a child I got "be a man". Now that I'm a an adult about to early retire, I'm thankful for that capacity to bear down and focus, but given my gout I wonder at what cost.
Yes, this does not apply to all environments, but I see this in my professional life WAY TOO OFTEN. Going out to clubs or bars, being invited to house parties - it is always the same story.
I say that the beauty ideal towards men MUST change asap: skinny should be better than muscular. Less aggressive hormones, less violence, less toxic masculinity.
I think women have it far worse in terms of how narrowly societal standards of "beautiful" are constructed. This has only started to change recently and mostly in a superficial way.
[1] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/32126
I think you've internalized your own version of a standard you think everybody else holds men accountable to, but it's an illusion. The majority of human society does not require all men conform to an 'alpha male' persona, and different societies also have different ways of performing masculinity. Furthermore, if you go to a club, bar, house party, work, etc, there will be lots of people with different ideas about what is attractive in a man, and most of them will not be the ideal that you've set yourself up to believe.
Please, go to therapy and talk about these issues. I swear to you that the problem is not with everyone else, it is the way you are looking at the world and yourself.
https://www.murdermiletours.com/blog/infamous-serial-killers...
However, I think "traditional masculinity" is mostly positive. Men are taught to deal with their problems on a personal level, suck it up, not blame external factors, and so on. Being tough is a good thing. No man is an island, but everyone (man and woman) should strive to be a promontory. Blaming society or culture or your parents or the world or God is usually not useful, even if it's true.
For these reasons, I find it a little disturbing when people start talking about "support systems for men" or when men are pushed to "be vulnerable and talk about our feelings". We have to thread a needle here: we should help people who cannot make it on their own but we also need to acculturate people to take responsibility for their lives, for their choices, for mistakes and failures. It's very hard to help people who struggle without making them weaker. One way it may be possible is for parents (and society) to be hard on kids while they're young but gradually ease up on them as they age. Being tough on a 5 year old is likely to help him. Being tough on a 30 year old who has mostly finished developing may just be cruel.
The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
My experience is that, yes, toughness is abrogated by "talking with others about your internal experience". Internal experience is subjective. No one but artists can really share it and when we try, we mostly just whine.
> The goal is not to be immune to stress and trauma. That’s not really a thing. The goal is to be able to deal effectively with adversity and overcome it. Part of being able to do that is acknowledging that you’re not a robot and employing appropriate strategies. Discussing these things with people that share common ground with you is an effective release mechanism. Releasing pressure during downtime enables mental toughness and self reliance in critical moments.
No one is immune to anything. Being tough is a huge advantage and the way you make people tough is by being hard on them. "Being hard on" is not abuse. There's room for compassion and love. But, today, as far as my experience goes, we're too far on the coddling side of things.
Completely agree about threading the needle. When I was young, men never talked about feelings. I grew up competent and successful, but also drank heavily to deal with anxiety. I didn't even know what anxiety was, that stuff just wasn't talked about when I was young. I agree though we can go too far and coddle people. This stuff is hard!
The problem is that traditional masculinity isn't traditional. I suspect that most people think of it as stoical silence. But I don't think thats universal.
Reading brideshead revisited(1945), the whole thing is stuffed with what one might would call "overly emotional men" but that same generation is marked as the "greatest" in the UK.
I really don't think its helpful to anyone to basically say: "here kid, you're on your own, if you can't solve it, we just keep quiet" Sure, discipline is key, but thats not the same as emotional repression. Its perfectly possible to be honest about your emotional state to someone, be stoic, self reliant and disciplined.
I think the big problem is that people think that masculinity is about repression of everything apart from getting sex and money. Any deviation is treated as weakness.
On the flip side, a woman with ambition, drive and leadership is treated like an anathema. Just as a man who cries in public.
The coin flips both ways and I can't find an argument for it being useful to wider society
Is a novel, not a documentary.
But I'm not sure how many men the above paragraph actually applies to. When you live online, it's easy to forget how, uh, primal the world can be for so many guys. I know people with good reasons to be happy, but due to some emasculating hangup (domineering father, absent father, bad dating history, height, etc), they view life through such a paranoid lens, seeing every interaction as some sort of competition. To them, letting one's guard down, stepping away from these masculine expectations, and being open about their fears still presents a legitimate challenge with legitimate reward.
This discourse seems tired because the demographic that needs it the least engages with it the most.
We do, we just don't put labels on it, it's informal, usually unscheduled and happens in various context and settings. You're out doing X and topic Y comes up. I personally don't like the topic of safe-spaces because no space is truly safe when you discuss actual dark or contrarian thoughts.
Having strict gender definitions isn’t good for anyone. I’m looking forward to people getting to be people, both emotionally supported and taken seriously at work.
Weirdly I guess it isn't about the space or the place. For me it is about listening, showing interest, talking a little less, not judging, and not avoiding awkwardness with jokes.
It is easy to make these spaces, you don't even need to find a space. Just listen.
The truth is that the majority of males in nature and in society, on average, has a worse lives because the dynamic of being a male causes a feast for a few and a famine for most.
Genetics gambles more with males than females because males can produce, rarely, a very large genetic return that females can't. This is easily explained by the rate limit of children for females but not for males.
This shows up in intelligence, strength, genetic disorders, etc. Male genetics are just more varied.
The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few.
I know this is a sensitive subject but it would be nice to have a real conversation about it.
There's a lot of evidence that males are, on average, the more miserable of the sexes but their misery is ugly and ignored. They die sooner by suicide and drug overdose. They have less friends, and are more depressed. There's a lot of reasons for this but I believe genetics is at the core.
Society could help here by recognizing this and trying to push against it - promoting a more social man, for example. But the predisposition is here to stay.
Individually, I'd say being more compassionate and outgoing to those creepy/ugly/weird males is something we all should think to do. Society seems to give us a pass at being not nice to these guys. I certainly don't think it's right though I admit guilt at times here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
It's evidence for an opposite social trend, not evidence of the total absence of aggressive socialization either presently or historically.
The distinction between innate vs socialized becomes a bit muddy when dealing with humans.
I say "umbrella" because the various researchers who advocate for the hypothesis tend to play fast and loose with which traits, exactly, are under consideration. Research shows that technical traits don't vary between natal genders? Move on to the next!
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6156605/
About that particular piece of research, the wiki article states (I don't know where to confirm it) "However, in the analysis the datasets from universities were discarded as they were considered possibly biased and insufficient. Instead only data from schools was used for the analysis."
This unfortunately is quite a political topic and, as such, research here can be politically motivated (for and against) so it is tough to break through the noise.
That is precisely what a meta-analysis does: it takes all of the individual datapoints, and attempts to find a consistent causative relationship. The absence of one is a strong indicator that the individual pieces of research are varyingly flawed.
Science, in its majesty, is never fully settled. But meta-analysis consistently show that each of the individual variability hypothesis are bunk.
And if we do look at stuff like SAT or math competitions then it is basically just men, very few women at the top there. So it looks like women do better when the ceiling is so low that the male variability doesn't show.
Society cannot see anything, it's just an abstraction. Let's not confuse government propaganda with reality. The only people who might are 20 yo virgins with a major in STEM. Who should do themselves a favor and internalize all heartiste had to say before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29236676 catches up with them.
We could blame estrogen and other sex hormones for making women prioritizing social behavior over other things, but my bet would be on culture. When genetics and environment meet, it is generally differences in environment that create large changes in behavior.
Looking back at the cultural outcome of world war 1 and world war 2, boys were molded to exist in their family until the age of 18. Then they were drafted into the service of the state, and if several years later they survived, form their own family and social life. Girls in contrast could keep their connection with their family, and thus was also expected to do that. This is the historical base for which our current culture is formed from, and while most military drafts are gone the culture has remained to some degree. Boys are still expected to "leave the nest" at early age, and girls are still expected to keep the social connections.
If culture expects women to be social and men to earn money and be independent, it doesn't seem strange that on average women will also be more social and men be more focused on earning money and be independent.
I don't understand how this follows. If we accept for the sake of argument that men are more varied, then shouldn't that result in more men doing exceptionally badly or exceptionally well, but men and women doing the same on average? If the idea is that life is a winner-take-all game and everyone but the most intelligent/conscientious/charismatic loses, then that would mean that even more women than men would lose out, because they're supposedly more likely to be average than exceptional. It could be that men are playing a winner-take-all game and women aren't, but I don't understand how that corresponds with our present reality. It's true that men are capable of impregnating a lot of women at once, and that might have affected the evolutionary development of male psychology -- but in Western societies today most relationships are monogamous. So when we're talking about the happiness of present-day males, I don't understand how it would be the outcome of a winner-take-all game.
I do believe that it's much worse to be a below-average man than it is to be a below-average women, simply because people are usually more supportive of women. If you're a woman who isn't particularly smart, attractive, or talented, you still have the support of other women (who are usually more friendly) and men (who want to be your boyfriend/husband and take care of you). If you're a below-average man, nobody supports you - women just aren't interested (and you would be expected to take care of them anyways), and other men aren't interested because men are usually less friendly.
I don't think any of the above is very controversial either. In fact most people realize there's an issue with many many miserable men. The main controversy is how to fix this issue. Some lonely / ugly / socially-awkward men are really aggressive and dangerous towards women, and it's hard to tell which ones.
I absolutely agree with you that it would really help if men are less cold around other strange men and try to talk / learn about them. In fact there's not much reason not to be friendly towards other men, or to be scared of them. Unlike with women, a strange man can't necessarily overpower you, and he's unlikely to be creepy towards you, his interest is more likely to be genuine. The main issue IMO is that lots of men just don't care much about talking with strangers, and can't really tell when someone needs human interaction.
That's cool, that's cool. You believe what you want.
Question to anyone reading this: What (if there is any) does the research say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_...
I had to click the link and read some of the article to be sure what you meant.
While not the target audience the group comprised mostly young 20-30 yo men, who were searching for their place in life. Bluntly generalizing their problems revolved around insecurity and not finding a partner. Actually most of them dropped out after eventually finding somebody.
Surprisingly (to me), another major issue that was discussed was problems with parents. This expressed in different ways, but was mostly "why don't you have a job/wife/family/house/etc yet?".
[1] "We are not a support group!" [2] Surprise ... I am not :-)
I get what you mean here, but when I was a kid, I was friends with everybody. It never occurred to me to not be, until I found out that, especially as an adolescent, you're judged by the company you keep (by both boys and girls). If you're friends with a bunch of "losers", you're a loser too. That's a stigma you can't escape, either. I learned in my teens to be way more aloof than I'm naturally inclined to be as a survival tactic.
There's less teenage drama as you get older but in reality it doesn't completely go away: there are still people (especially women) who will avoid you if your associate circle is too unimpressive.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323124659.h... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anything-boys-can...
It seems that variability does vary amongst some phenotypes (height, for instance), but there is an equal amount of variability that shows females having it higher in other phenotypes.
For those interested in a pro-mens issues space, I spend some time on r/menslib subreddit on Reddit [0]. It’s specifically focused on mens issues, but in a way that actively affirms specific movements like feminism, racial equality, and lgbtq progress.
[0]: http://reddit.com/r/menslib
Other than that one, I don't know of other such positive men's spaces.
I recognise that my thought process that leads me to conclude that probably falls into the category of "toxic masculinity", but my issues are my own, and, regardless of whether or not I am in a "space" that allows for me to share my feelings, I personally feel that offloading your issues onto people who aren't trained professionals is selfish and can be harmful.
From my perspective, what men need is to be able to destigmatize seeking professional help for mental issues.
And I'll admit that it may be a case of I'm not understanding the details of what the original article was meaning, but I read it as "support networks" etc.
I don't want to get together with people, regardless of if they are strangers or friends/family and talk about my problems. Realistically what can they do? More often than not in those spaces it is a lot of listening and empathising. If that makes a person feel better, then I'm all for that. But for me, it comes across as performative caring to make others feel good about "helping" and isn't actually addressing what my issues are or why they make me feel a certain way.
I will say, all of the above is based upon my own experiences and how I feel, and isn't intended as a sweeping claim. I want everyone who has mental health issues to have access to the help they need, and if someone needs the kind of help that involves listening and empathising then they should absolutely have access to that. I'm just not sure based upon my own experience (and the experiences of other men), that a lot of men want the same kind of mental health support that is available to women.
maybe the vr metaverse will be useful after all?
NOTE: I'm not looking for troll comments in replies (or for folks to try and rope me into some toxic anti-something culture/group). I understand this is a sticky subject, so please take the most-positive interpretation of my words below, as I am not a good writer or speaker.
When I recently discovered, at mid-life, that I could have been a stay at home dad, I was amazed that I went through my whole life striving for a career when all I really want is to take care of my home and kids, and have someone else make the money and do the career stuff. It never even occurred to me that I could choose to do the "woman's work" as a full-time homemaker, and find a partner that had a career. Now, I am stuck being the career person for at least another 5 or 10 years (while my wife tries to build a career, which she prefers over home-making) and I have to go through daily crap that I hate, rather than spending all my time with my son and maybe other kids I could have had. I'm just lucky my wife enjoys working and wants to build a career to support our family.
When I got married, my wife didn't want to change her name (for various reasons that are extremely valid) and I didn't mind that. However, I wanted to have the same name as my possible future kids because it's hard to do things like pick them up after school. So, I changed my name to my wife's last name. Lucky for me, the state that I resided in and the state that I was married in were both of the 9 out of 50 (at the time, not sure today) which allowed a man to take the last name of his wife when married (again, I am not sure about same-sex marriages so I can't comment). If not, I would have had to spend thousands and months of my time to change my name. Interestingly, I also had several people comment straight to my face (or behind my back, which I heard about) that me changing my name wasn't what a man did, it wasn't manly, etc.
The biggest issue: I also have trouble finding my own spaces where I can be supported, not even just with other men. Sure, traditionally men gathered in pubs or lodges and they could talk about men's issues, and perhaps those still exist today. However, there is no club or place for a guy like me, who is not into sports or anything, and where I would rather talk about my problems and how to solve them without blaming women, getting crass about sex and women's bodies, or talking about the things I enjoy. Sure, I can go to a game store and talk to folks about my hobbies, or I can discuss things here on HN about tech, but that's not my everyday life. Also, I found that after 10 years with various "professionals", that a therapist is NOT a replacement for friends and an open environment. I want to discuss my issues with stress and anxiety, I want to discuss my marriage issues, and I want to talk about my hobbies with men who won't tell me to divorce my wife, get a girlfriend on the side, or tell me to "suck it up". I basically want to be accepted much like women seem to accept each other, and will just listen to each other even if they don't understand or don't care about some topic. I have tried to make friends with women in groups, but they are always thinking I have ulterior motives, and I don't disagree with their pattern-matching in that area because many men do have ulterior motives for befriending women. When I was in college, one of my favorite things to do was go into the dorm room next door with the 3 women who lived there, and I would sit and talk to them about various topics, I don't even remember what. I never thought about sex or relationships with them, I jus...