I do think this is worth exploring, but something that comes out of it is —- if not sure exactly what the problem is but it’s something along the lines of any belief system becomes problematic when it becomes too ubiquitous/dogmatic.
I think the term “toxic masculinity” sort if has three different connotations, for some it’s a weapon to attack people with, for some it’s a weapon to be attacked by (both of these things are bad)
But for a lot of people (myself included) it’s an “obviously” useful/enpowering framework for understanding why society rejects certain kinds of men, and why certain societal pressure in men feels harmful to men. The term toxic masculinity isn’t supposed to just describe the behavior on others, it’s supposed to describe the way it is toxic to men themselves!
I do think it’s somewhat time to evolve past the feminism of the past. As someone who read a decent amount of it, I could argue until I’m blue in the face about how it is meant to be inclusive of all people, but sometimes I think a unfortunate truth about society is the cover matters more than the book. Or if you are going to use feminism as the framework, then you have to have people representing all sides of it, and not sort of imbalanced towards just one wave/interpretation/side. And I think that’s hard to do because of the incentives.
I've noticed that my male colleagues are, generally speaking, outpaced by my female colleagues. The latter tend to have more drive to succeed, higher social intelligence, and are more competent.
I'm not sure why this is, but I expect it's because women and girls are now being given equality of opportunity to a greater extent than ever before, and it turns out they're just better at most things in our modern society.
So I'm not convinced that "male inequality" is the best term to describe this state of affairs. When women having more equal opportunities leads to worse outcomes for some men, is that really inequality for the men? Or are we just seeing natural differences play out.
Maybe the future for most men is work where brute force and strength is required, as that's the only edge they really have on women, comparing group to group.
2 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 16.6 ms ] threadI think the term “toxic masculinity” sort if has three different connotations, for some it’s a weapon to attack people with, for some it’s a weapon to be attacked by (both of these things are bad)
But for a lot of people (myself included) it’s an “obviously” useful/enpowering framework for understanding why society rejects certain kinds of men, and why certain societal pressure in men feels harmful to men. The term toxic masculinity isn’t supposed to just describe the behavior on others, it’s supposed to describe the way it is toxic to men themselves!
I do think it’s somewhat time to evolve past the feminism of the past. As someone who read a decent amount of it, I could argue until I’m blue in the face about how it is meant to be inclusive of all people, but sometimes I think a unfortunate truth about society is the cover matters more than the book. Or if you are going to use feminism as the framework, then you have to have people representing all sides of it, and not sort of imbalanced towards just one wave/interpretation/side. And I think that’s hard to do because of the incentives.
I'm not sure why this is, but I expect it's because women and girls are now being given equality of opportunity to a greater extent than ever before, and it turns out they're just better at most things in our modern society.
So I'm not convinced that "male inequality" is the best term to describe this state of affairs. When women having more equal opportunities leads to worse outcomes for some men, is that really inequality for the men? Or are we just seeing natural differences play out.
Maybe the future for most men is work where brute force and strength is required, as that's the only edge they really have on women, comparing group to group.