Interesting perspective. It would be really mind-blowing to see the other side of the gender, even though I have no interest in being trans.
One thing I will add to this article is that men are also viewed as little more than bank machines after divorce. People always have the utmost sympathy for any mother who is separated from her children, even if only for a few days. Movie plots can revolve around mothers finding their lost children and being reunited. But for men? We’re only the providers, the ones who pay the child support.
I lost my kids (not legally, just boring old classic parental alienation) six years ago following the divorce. Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
The lack of emotional support for men mentioned in the article is another thing that really exacerbates divorces and leads to suicides. I do feel like if I were the type of person to contemplate suicide (I’m not), I would have definitely done it when my ex took my kids from me. And there would have been no male friends to pull me back from the edge. Those friendships are, to quote the author, superficial to a large degree, or even the ones that aren’t are men who are now focused heavily on their own families and wives.
I mean, it’s also true all the other stuff about the male privilege and feeling safe and the good things that come with being a man. But it’s nice to see the perspective of how we lack emotional support and we’re expected to grit our teeth and “walk it off.”
Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
That is the worst. So sorry you’re having to deal with that and not get support from the men in your life.
I’m sorry about the parental alienation you and your children have suffered, that’s terrible for everyone.
Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.”
I’m confused why you wouldn’t want him to see them. Isn’t in your best interest to have people who love you and think you’re a good dad in your kids’ lives? Somebody to counter the alienating narrative in whatever ways they can?
Not OP, but yes, obviously. It’s still different than being in their kids’ lives and even if the grandfather is supportive, it’s no replacement for direct interaction. I also think there is the question of weather the grandparent will be supportive of OP or protective of the relationship with the grandkids when faced with a difficult decision with regard to who they need to win favor with.
Oh I’m fine with him seeing his grandkids but he has no empathy for my situation, considering it a dispute between myself and my ex. He even shares details from his trips to see them, as though that wouldn’t hurt me to hear about it. His lack of empathy is the problem.
My mother, on the other hand, criticized my ex for the situation and was “cut off.” So, despite the fact I’m sad that my mother can’t see her grandkids because she, unlike my dad, did take sides, I feel like she had the empathy to stick up for her son and point out it the situation isn’t right.
I will also mention my brother was “cut off” because of his close associations with me.
In “theory” or “legally” I have 50-50 custody. In practice, it’s nearly impossible to enforce visitation with older children. My kids were 15 and 9 when we split. Immediately, the courts said enforcement on the 15-year-old was impossible. I spent a few years battling enforcement on the 9-year-old but she soon also became unenforceable. At a certain point you can’t win if the kids also don’t want to see you or make your visit a nightmare by passively resisting.
I was in the middle of one of these court battles when my daughter became anorexic and told the medical staff she didn’t want me to visit her in hospital. She was about 13 and that was the last I saw her.
Legally, I am a 50-50 parent but in reality the only thing I’m entitled to do is pay their mother $1,000 a month.
I am very low contract with my mother and sister because they kept my ex as a friend after all her bullshit through the divorce. I put on a show for my son to have sort of normal family times at holidays, etc. but I mostly do not connect with them outside of time with my son. We are NOT friends.
So, internet stranger. I understand the crazy bullshit that comes with divorce for a man.
And it is amazing how quickly and thoroughly men are discarded after a divorce. Disposable indeed.
In a perfect world I could have had an amicable divorce from my ex and everybody could have stayed in touch and been happy.
Instead I had a “Michael Bay” divorce where everything went really explosive and badly. It’s sad because I see a lot of example – such as our own prime minister – who have a great divorce where everybody is respectful and mature and life goes happily on.
I’ve tried to explain to my dad how screwed up it is that he maintains a relationship with my ex despite my zero contact with my kids but he doesn’t care. Actually, he went to my exes wedding with her new husband last month, which involved him flying to my city. He didn’t visit me, which is really the extra cherry on the shit sundae.
Yeah, divorce was similar for me. I was discussing and considering collaborative divorce with my lawyer until I was served the restraining order...which I got dismissed. That started about 2 years of legal theater propelled by stupid amounts of money.
You do find out just how selfish your family is when you go through a divorce, don't you? And how little they really care about you.
At a certain point I went "Bush" on family/friends: If you're not for me then you're against me. I still think it brought me back to some sort of sanity in dealing with people. And taking the trash people out of my life.
A story all too common. Someone I know mine got divorced a number of years ago. He’s a fun, charming, kind, decent looking fellow in good shape for his age, and I can’t imagine he did anything to deserve what happened. I don’t know all the details of their divorce, but I know all but one of his children was poisoned against him by his (now ex) wife, and it’s only because the one happened to be away long term at the time.
His ex has several advanced degrees and is more than capable of earning six figures. And yet, he was still ordered to pay her spousal support and a sizable chunk of his pension. The divorce and family court system is absolutely fucked for men and it’s a small wonder so many of them contemplate drastic measures when their lives are ripped away from them.
Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men and then conveniently “forgot” to balance out all of the exclusive rights women get just for being women.
Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men
Feminism hasn’t done that yet, we’re nowhere near equal rights and opportunities for women and if you don’t believe me, look at the gender balance in US government roles and who has the money and power.
Let’s focus on dismantling patriarchy and the harm it creates for men as well.
This is BS, currently feminism looks to only strive after the cozy office places and various places of power. I didnt seen feminism once to call for equal numbers of female rig workers, construction workers, Alaska fishing jobs and similar… Feminists are mysteriously somehow always just after the lucrative office jobs…
They can both be problems simultaneously, and it’s disingenuous to argue that there aren’t militant feminists pushing to keep all of the advantages from earlier eras.
This is a men’s lib forum, and men’s liberation is pro feminist (feel free to check the wiki or that nice bell hooks quote trending on this forum if you disagree).
By being a strong ally to women, men benefit too, and I choose to keep doing that.
You can have the last word if you like, I’m gonna peace out here.
I hope I’m not intruding on men’s spaces here as a transwoman,
But after my transition that was one of the biggest, most drastic contrasts between the two binary gender’s social dynamics. Men just don’t get to talk about their feelings- whether it stems from homophobia or misogyny, men are generally seen as an island to themselves and if you display otherwise, it is seen as a weakness worthy of admonition and disrespect. There is still a societal expectation that men are supposed to be stoic, stable providers while women are increasingly allowed liberation. Hard fought, and rightly so but what’s the point of “equality” if we don’t lift everyone up to the same standards?
I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman. This just isn’t fair or right, regardless of the other privelages men may have. Justice is for everyone, not just minorities.
Yet, it is up to men to decide this. Yes, women can and should support you, but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.
*An edit for an addendum: I hope nobody reads this feeling that I’m blaming men, or being accusational. I want to clarify that I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.
I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman.
As a women that, granted, had some serious questions about gender in my younger years this has always blown my mind because it’s so multi-faceted.
Women are more emotionally supportive, but it can quickly spiral into an almost gross-feeling and superficial reinforcement. Everything seems to be “valid” or demands an emotion-ridden hullabaloo, whereas the men in my life have always been more direct and straightforward, unafraid to call out my general jack-assery or quip “yeah, that sucks” when there’s not much else to be said about my general state of affairs.
The flip side of this is that women tend to be more sympathetic/vocal to general life events and encouraging to mild up or down days, whereas men tend to cock an eyebrow and ask what you’re so excited/upset about when you show up to work “having feelings” on a random Tuesday because your spouse threw a fit about leftover spaghetti that morning.
The dichotomy is fascinating to me, to watch unfold every day with every interaction. I find myself (not correctly or incorrectly) leaning towards men in times of crisis (muted response), and towards women in times of -life in general- (exacerbated response) because it gives me the mean/median output of (normal human response).
However, this doesn’t mean men only have “regular” mode or “crisis” mode, or that women only live in an amplified wave of “normal” and “slightly less normal”, and I think that’s where we find our faults. Our definition of the masculine and the feminine revolve around a dead sun that no longer serves us well. Men ARE emotionally supportive, and women ARE reserved/stoic, it’s just not always what you expect at the time so it gets glossed over and deleted, to the detriment of everyone.
Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.
First, this is a long comment, and I don’t want to come off as dissing it. I agree with you. Except for that concluding thought.
I used to think that that was true, women vs. men for voting rights. But about ten years ago, I wandered into the Berkeley Historical Society. They had a bunch of materials on display about the women’s suffrage movement, including just boxes of documents. One of the first ones that I pulled out was a poster for an anti-suffrage meeting. A meeting organized by women.
In fact, they had lots of documentation about anti-suffrage efforts by the society women of Berkeley. That completely shocked me, given Berkeley’s crunchy reputation. But I did more research later, and found that it was not at all unusual.
Up until the early years of the 20th century, most women were against it! Even when the 15th Amendment passed, a large minority of women still opposed it. As well, quite a lot of men supported it. (Obviously, they had, to since they were the ones voting to pass it.)
Anyway, the framing of the issue as women demanding the vote from men is oversimplified.
but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.
Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.
Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.
Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.
I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.
I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.
When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.
Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.
Rather than intruding, transitioned individuals ought to be seen as the strongest allies - on both sides of the fence. The lived experience you being to the table is tremendously valuable because it is so indisputably valid.
It’s not only a question of men. If you want a romantic relationship, you need to fit the society’s standards for the sex you are looking for. If women are looking for toxic virility, the sad truth is that men who embrace it will have an easier time finding a relationship.
This is not something you take from anyone. And this is the biggest problem many men have with the #metoo era: we acknowledge toxic masculinity is toxic and can even be deadly, but what is the alternative? There is none currently.
There is no model for modern men that is worthy of both modern men and women. This is why we have incels and other hardcore conservative going hard on hating women or even more toxic masculinity.
But I digress. The solution is not in a fight, it’s in acceptance from both men and women.
Thank you for sharing. I haven’t figured out the magic words to communicate this well. I worked at a company that proudly announced longer maternity care for newborns, an astounding (for the US) 6 months. Fathers got 2. I’m a dad and wasn’t going to have any more kids, but some of us spoke up and suggested that dads deserve time with their children as well. It was explained that mothers have special connections with children (nursing) and are genetically (yuck) more loving caretakers. Their brains are wired for empathy, so they deserve more time. Remember when we all agreed it was awful to say men are better at logic and reasoning? Me neither because it was so long ago. How is this okay? And we wonder why far more women drop out of the workforce to become full time parents.
There’s a theory that women quit to care for kids because they don’t have enough support, so let’s give them extra time off, extra health care benefits, recovery support, reinforcing stereotypes and gender roles. It’s the most ass backward approach to what should be the goal to encourage husbands to take larger roles in families. When a man speaks up, he’s part of the patriarchy, suppressing women’s voices. Women need to be heard and supported, not mansplained. If anyone can suggest how to change the conversation without being labeled a bully while simultaneously being bullied, I would love to learn.
I’m a white, cis, heterosexual American male. I’m supposed to be privileged in every way, feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.
I wouldn’t know how to express my feelings the way the author has. I’d feel like a misogynistic neckbeard, callous racist, or ungrateful whiner. If, somehow, I didn’t feel these things, someone would quickly, loudly, and condescendingly remind me that I should. They’d then be applauded for putting me in my place.
I can’t thank the author enough for writing this article.
I didn’t feel these things, someone would quickly, loudly, and condescendingly remind me that I should. They’d then be applauded for putting me in my place.
Those people are racist, sexists. If they didn’t have you to target, they’d find another group. Don’t give them the time of day.
I’m supposed to be privileged in every way, feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.
Why are you supposed to e.g. “feel endlessly guilty over things you cannot control”?
"Check your privilege" has only ever meant that people want others to understand how situations and histories might be different. White guilt is a thing white people made up to make it about them.
It's generally just people not being able to accept being wrong about something. They take it as a personal insult and hit to their pride rather than just going oh? Verify? Oh shit, neat.
Instead it's I must be a piece of shit. Other people must not like me now. They must be talking about me...
Mother fucker nobody paying attention to you but MAYBE yourself and MAYBE your closest loved ones lol.
If you walk around in life with a chip on your back, everything becomes an insult though. It's the literal republican modus operandi primed mostly through religion via guilt.
Fortunately, it’s not anger in my case. It’s “just” poor self esteem and a tendency to feel guilt for things that I know (rationally, at least) aren’t my fault.
Yeah it's definitely a hard habit to break. Largely depending on how you were raised with a bit of natural tendencies here and there.
It absolutely is a mindset though. One which you can get out of given enough challenge, time, patience, and professional help if you're not good with executive function.
People who share some of my characteristics have historically done, and are currently doing, absolutely horrible things. Empathy with the victims isn’t enough for some. I’m part of the problem simply by being born, until I prove otherwise.
I can’t blame people who feel some suspicion and resentment, either. It’s justified.
But that doesn't mean you have to feel guilty. That's, usually at least, not what people are asking for either. Guilt isn't helpful.
Being aware of the social systems we live under, the power structures those systems create, and the blind spots we might have. That's what's being asked for.
No, it isn’t helpful. Part of that guilt comes from not being able to do enough. Yeah, I try to learn as much as possible, but that only goes so far. I’m not rich. I’m not powerful. There’s so much injustice that I want to change, but can’t.
I know logically that guilt is useless, but the feeling persists.
I’m part of the problem simply by being born, until I prove otherwise.
Again: who is saying that? I’m sure there are some people who do, but in my experience that’s a really tiny minority. And the majority of texts I read about e.g. (male) privilege explicitly state that being privileged does not mean you’re guilty or a bad person.
I can’t blame people who feel some suspicion and resentment, either. It’s justified.
I mean yeah, I can understand why a women might prefer to walk on the other side of the street from me at night. It hurts of course, but I understand it. That doesn’t mean I need to feel guilty about it though.
Honest question, what’re your thoughts on the racial reparations discussion? I was surprised to hear that it exists tbh, mostly cause of how impossible it seems as a target. But my understanding is that there are people getting some real attention saying that white people should give enough money that they can’t pay their bills to make up for their privilege.
I haven’t heard of it. In Germany there is some discussion about reparations for societies colonized by Germany, the genocides against the Herero and Namaqa and every once about further reparations for the Nazi crimes - all of which make a lot of sense to me, especially the former two as they haven’t received any significant reparations that I know of.
I’m not American but the minister for Family/Sexual Violence in my country publicly said that “it is white, cis men” who “cause[s] violence in the world”. Was pretty gutted to find out that my ex (cis woman) treating me like shit is entirely my own fault according to the MP who is supposed to represent all victims of family, sexual, and relationship violence.
feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.
Because of things our ancestors did long ago that has nothing to do with us right now as people.
I got a lot of downvotes on Reddit for pointing out that there’s no scientific evidence supporting porn addiction. It’s just the latest version of religious indoctrination. ISIS was using that as part of their recruitment process: men who are sexually repressed are easier for them to manipulate.
I think it’s a lot like weed or video game addiction.
Is it going to send you to the hospital? Probably not. But if you let it take over your life to the extent that it’s detrimental, then using strategies that help people kick physical addictions can be effective.
These religious groups seem to hate a lot of things that appeal to basic pleasures, want to make you feel bad for wanting to feel good.
Porn addiction does not exist. No one qualified to diagnose addiction would diagnose you with that because it doesn’t exist. You’re delusional and self-diagnosing if you really think that.
I feel addicted to porn and games as well. I feel weird when I’m not getting either one of these for a long time and I don’t see any way to get out of this. But I guess games addiction is still not that damaging to my mental health unlike porn where I start to fantasize intensely even if I get slightly distracted with such feelings. Then I try to make an elaborate scene in my mind with all sorts to kinks or fetishes that I like until I get enough dopamine out of it.
As with most things, there are a lot of problems with the porn INDUSTRY that we as a society ignore, and instead tell individual people that all the ills are their own fault.
Same, I got in arguments about it. Quoting Wikipedia did not convince them.
Ask any psychiatrist and they will confirm porn is okay.
Imagine the mannosphere and incels being nofap. Imagine all that repressed energy, all this contradiction with their normal nature, just because of beliefs.
I mean a porn addiction is absolutely a thing, but it’s not an issue inherent to porn, humans can form a mental addiction to anything and porn can be an easy target. It’s just not porn itself that causes the addiction, since it’s not physically causing a chemical dependence, and porn addictions obviously aren’t anywhere near as prevalent as addictions to physically addictive substances. Porn addictions are certainly much much rarer than religious institutions act like they are, but they do exist, they’re just psychological in nature rather than physiological. And to reiterate, porn itself doesn’t cause addiction, or addictive behaviour if you want to be pedantic about it, but some people can form an emotional dependence on it just like they can form an emotional dependence on anything. If not porn then something else. But pretending they don’t exist at all is just ridiculous. The term addiction isn’t only used in one specific medical or physical sense and never has been, even in the medical community.
You mean like it doesn’t exist? Asking that as a genuine question since Terry Crews has talked about his addiction to porn and how it almost ruined his marriage, and it doesn’t seem like a crazy stretch to believe that you can be addicted to porn (or, maybe more accurately, addicted to getting off).
That being said, the NoFap community is pretty fuckin weird and unhealthy as a whole. The stuff like semen retention is unscientifically proven, and treating any orgasm (including from sex) as being bad is just plain dumb. There’s tangible health benefits to jacking off, and I would wager that it’s better to lay off the porn because of how much it can fuckin warp people’s minds about partners and sex (and to help curb an excessive whacking off habit - I mean like “this is interfering with my life” levels).
People can be “addicted” to everything and anything. It just requires the “right” mindset to turn that thing into more than a habit. Saying people has innate tendency to be addicted to something is totally different, however. The latter also happens to be what matters in the medical field for obvious reasons.
Addiction has a very specific clinical meaning as is stated in the article. Porn usage doesn't fit that meaning. That isn't to say that someone cannot compulsively masturbate or watch porn. But, again as stated in the article and a lot of other literature, it doesn't have the same physiological or psychological effects as an addiction. And most of the people doing something compulsively like that are doing it as a symptom of an underlying problem (likely depression in many cases), not as the cause of the problem itself.
In other words, crack and Xanax create a problem. Porn can be used in response to certain psychological problems.
I like Terry Crews. Wholesome guy. But he isn't a doctor or scientist.
“Porn addiction” is actually more like “porn compulsion.” Colloquially, compulsions are often called addictions (“video game addiction” is also a compulsion, an addiction would be something like crack) but it’s worrying with porn because it’s treated as an actual addiction, and the theories behind the modern worries about “porn addiction” are pseudoscience by unqualified people (Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson) with a very strict idea of what a sexual relationship should look like.
exactly. lurking underneath all thi s'porn is bad for people' nonsense is the same anti-sex beliefs that the only 'correct' form of sexual behaviour is heteronormative monogamy for procreation.
god forbid people want to feel sexual pleasure and holy mary jesus christ forbid that they EVER enjoy watching someone else's sexual performance.
IIRC, isn't there a distinction between chemical and physical addictions? Like a chemical addiction is drugs, booze, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, etc., a physical addiction could be basically anything that isn't making you chemically dependant, but becomes compulsory enough to interfere with your life/mental health (gambling, video games, porn, shopping, etc.). Or do I have that wrong? I honestly can't remember how I came by that information.
Nicole Prause, a neuroscientist who researches human sexual behavior at the University of California and the co-author of a recent study on NoFap, believes that there’s no objective basis for pornography addiction, an opinion supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies and experts in the field.
. “If the public uses terms like ‘I’m addicted to chocolate,’ that’s fine. I’m not gonna police language like that,” Prause explained. “But when you use it to refer to a disorder, it has a very specific meaning that pornography just does not fill.”
“Addiction” is a specific word with legal and medical meanings. “Porn addiction” is not recognized as an addiction.
Some porn, along with a myriad of other factors, can contribute negatively to an individual’s sexual health. Not all porn is crazy and unrealistic. Not all porn is unhealthy.
Some of the other quotes in the article address how most people who diagnose themselves with “porn addiction” actually have another underlying disorder, often depression or bipolar.
I don’t know Crews personally, but I can guarantee a licensed professional did NOT diagnose him with porn addiction. Because that’s just not a legitimate diagnosis. The world, and particularly America, has enough issues with mental healthcare. Making up fake disorders to self-diagnose hurts the medical community that’s actually trying to help people with real disorders.
I guess it makes sense that the psychology community would push back against the claim that pornography fits a scientific definition of addiction. The same deal goes for sugar: many people talk about sugar being addictive, but it’s pretty absurd to classify sugar as addictive substance, and the article raises this point very explicitly:
That isn’t to say that people can’t use pornography compulsively, as you may compulsively eat donuts or bacon every day against the best interests of your heart
And that’s what most people usually mean when they’re addicted to it. So I wouldn’t say that it’s indoctrination or “hive mind”, it’s just how people use the word “addiction” in day-to-day, non-scientifically-precise ways. You’re absolutely right to point that out because people should not seek addiction treatment for porn consumption, but it’s also understandable to seek treatment for compulsive consumption of whatever. Just like sugar and junk food, while the science doesn’t say it’s addiction, it also presents endless evidence on the negative effects of common patterns of consumption.
Idk just because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy washy and kinda stinks to me.
Humans literally have evolved to consume as much sugar as possible and same goes for porn because the human sexual response can’t differentiate between real or fake sexual stimulus. Humans see naked bodies, humans get aroused. No matter wether digital imagery or not.
because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy
Well, that’s not the argument I’d make, nor does it seem to be the one presented by the sources for the article. I agree that this would be very wishy washy!
Even if you have the world's tinkiest dinky you're going to want an elongated bowl just to have some room for the pee to arc out so you don't piss all over your balls.
I’m really confused reading this thread. Why isn’t it possible to just twist and tuck it left or right? I’m a dude and have never had a problem peeing sitting down on a round toilet.
Round seats are best because you can tuck your willy under the seat and there’s no chance of it popping up. Also the cool ceramic underside of the toilet seat helps stimulate urine flow
This really resonates, mainly because it’s so true. I think a lot of men these days are feeling lost, sad, lonely, and angry. Some of us think it’s because we have forgotten what it means to be a “real” man, and the answer is more bravado, more machismo. But maybe what we actually need is to start learning to communicate with each other on a meaningful level, to redefine manhood in a way that allows us to express emotions in a socially acceptable way, and start forming real, close friendships with other men.
It’s an important topic that is often brushed off due to the individuals that tend to bring them up. The problem is though, that the problems these individuals have are in part caused by the lack of emotional support men receive socially.
I’m not defending any of the macho know-it-all “gurus” that I’m talking about, but I’m just pointing out that it’s important for women as well as men to care about this issue and try to change it in their daily lives, because aside from being toxic to men, it also creates more problems and worsens the existing ones.
How do you try to change it? Just open up more serious conversations with men, talk about feelings, even if they look at you weird at the beginning.
It’s a confusing time to be a man. Things are shifting in society. A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need. Unfortunately, when you’re having difficulty figuring out your place in society, and what it means to be a man, you are vulnerable to extremism. Being told your rightful place is on top, and that women, minorities, and LGBTQ are to blame is powerful messaging.
What do women want? Every woman is different, so that's for you to figure out. And if you can't figure it out, it's not women who are responsible for that.
The problem is that churches and religious zealots have a LOT of money and are willing to spend it on things that make our world more like a Handmaid’s Tale.
I found this video to be really well put together analysis of these religiously-funded redpill outlets staffed by young religious single guys or multiply divored religious assholes who are trying to be experts on love and dsting despite being absolutely horrible people.
The key takeaway is that a lot of what appeals to these American Taliban types is the idea of being able to hold women captive and under control, because they know they are awful and that given free will no woman wants to be with a controlling asshat, so they work to enact “enforced monogamy” and to eliminate divorce.
If you think about it it’s not that surprising. Sexism was basically a way to subsidize substandard men and guarantee them a sexual partner. If you can’t open a bank account without a man, you find a man, even if he’s an angry ball of mush.
I remember like 10 years back I was 23 and was riding the bus with young guy from one of the clubs I was in in university. He was maybe 19 or so.
We’re on the bus, and a woman boards who looks very pretty and has a satchel with a bunch of enamel pins of the pokemon gym badges on it.
I compliment her flair, and we have a pleasant conversation about pokemon until my stop. Pretty normal stuff.
I disembark with my mentee and he turns to me and goes “WHAT?! IT’S THAT EASY TO TALK TO WOMEN BY JUST ASKING ABOUT THEIR INTERESTS?”
He was just completely unaware that people respond well when you pay attention to them and treat them like people. He was convinced the only way to talk to girls was by using pickup lines.
In fact I agree many men don’t have a net positive to offer. What I disagree with is the framing that women are “deciding” that, and I wouldn’t discard the idea that the increase in women freedom is contributing factor for an uptick in extremist sexism but I also think that warrants some proper care to back it up as a claim.
I’m confused by what you mean. You mean this is less a revelation about men and more an increased ability to walk away? Sure. I’m damn sure our great grandmammies knew their hubbies weren’t shit.
Yes, that’s the point. I might be splitting hairs here, but I think the portrayal of these “confusing times” as a consequence of women walking away is part of the problem. Them walking away is part of the remedy for extremist sexism, not a cause for its increase in strength.
This is such a foolish perspective. You’re moralizing outcomes. Women entering the workforce caused a massive inflation spike and for wages to stagnate for decades. That’s bad. Women ended up working in the office AND doing all the housework. That’s bad. Was women entering the workforce bad? Fucking of course not.
Good things ALWAYS inspire reaction. That’s why they’re called reactionaries. This is pretty basic political philosophy. Your resistance to it is nonsensical. If you don’t learn the mentality of fascists you will never beat them.
Imagine being this much a dismissive asshole to someone you KNOW is on your side. Holier than thou morons like you are such a fucking impediment to the advancement of left wing causes.
I think it’s just a matter of wording that might be causing a misunderstanding. I don’t think he said that this is caused by women ‘deciding’ to walk away, but rather, for the first times in history, women as a whole have far more agency than they ever had in deciding to be in a relationship or not.
Take everything I say with a grain of salt because I’m not a man. I’m going to make a lot of assumptions about cis men here.
Under the patriarchal norms, many men are raised to derive their self worth based on things that are not always fully within their control such as wealth, looks, employment, etc, many of which are conflated with their ability to attract a partner. Some of these men may have also been socialized into believing that finding a sexual partner is a valid subsistute for emotional connection, because horniness and anger are the only acceptable emotions. This leads to the idea that all women exist to resolve their repressed mental health issues and sexual frustrations.
It’s a confusing time for these men because not only are many women becoming more selective towards feminist men who don’t adhere as strongly to these ideologies, but many women are also just happily single. Feminism has taught many women, but not enough men, how to live a fulfilling life beyond patriarchal norms. It hasn’t done enough to teach men how to find self worth independent of women, how to embrace and process emotions, how to address mental health issues, how to recognize male sexual assault, how to live by yourself, how to empathize with peers, etc.
Women walking away from men is a symptom of feminism teaching them how to fulfilling lives as people, and we have yet to do so as effectively with men. It’s not that feminism is teaching women to become single, but that a partner with antiquated views is no longer a prerequisite to a fulfilling life.
I think that’s an overall look we can all agree on; and if that’s the high level conceptualization that the original comment was aiming for, we’re good.
On the other hand, anyone who has a decent number of hetero women friends knows that even though the overall anxiety over being single has reduced (not zeroed, unfortunately), most are open to the idea of a relationship. And if you just go out there and ask them if they believe that such relationship could offer something of value, the answer will be: “of course”. And if you have a chat in most groups, stories of recent attempts to build a relationship abound. Women are still very open and as actively pursuant of men - in fact, more than in previous times in some ways.
Hence saying “women are deciding that most men don’t have anything of value to offer” is, in my view, an overly dramatic characterization of the feminist thought. We were speaking of extremism and you know what contributes to reactionary movements? Exaggerated characterizations of the other side. We want men to be self sufficient, not MGTOWs.
feminism teaching them how to fulfilling lives as people, and we have yet to do so as effectively with men
A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need.
I think this is the case for some women and isn't just a perception. There are surveys that are showing that single women are the happiest and most satisfied with their life while married women are the least. The old threat that you will die single and alone isn't working anymore. The helpless men (the ones who can't cook, can't clean, can't support emotionally) used to skate by since women needed men. They don't anymore and they are scared.
It's sad because the expectations to be a "good" partner are so low for most men and most still don't meet it. Most women I know want someone with a job, whose clean and nice to them but can't find someone who fits all three.
As a demographic men need to step it up and as a society we failed them. It's so sad the number of men who can't cook a single meal or clean anything. These are important life skills that their mothers and fathers didn't prepare them for because of outdated gender roles. Mother's prepared their daughters for these changes but didn't their sons. That is the issue
This is mostly wrong. While there are many men child, many aren’t. But 1) many women are actually conservative (probably about 30%) and 2) even if they aren’t, you don’t pickup women just by being nice, it takes social skills that you probably don’t know you innately have, but many men don’t.
Maybe? Big difference between “a lot of women” and “for some woman”. And even so, I don’t buy that line of argument.
I take issue with the wording and that’s why I doubt this is a truthful phenomenon:
A lot of women
What is a lot here? 10% of women? 1%? 80%? Does this come from a survey? This is being offered as an explanation, so I think it’s important to not handwave this kind of qualitative analysis. If you’re going to put some responsibility on women’s attitudes, I think it warrants proper research.
are deciding
Is it a decision? Do women get to decide the consequences of the behavior of men?
There are surveys that are showing that single women are the happiest and most satisfied with their life while married women are the least.
Okay. There are also surveys that say otherwise. And even if we’re to believe that single women is the happiest cohort, can you establish a real link between that and more teens getting exposed to sexist ideology?
This all feels cheap philosophy and it’s ridiculously close of shifting the blame of men’s bad upbringing towards women being less accepting of garbage relationships. Maybe teenage men getting out of high school talking shit about alpha/beta/sigma is the reason why single women is the happiest cohort, not the other way around.
I sometimes frequent forums where women air their grievances, and so many of the complaints about men particularly are just sad as hell.
One I can recall from a month or two ago was a woman ranting about how she doesn't want to be expected to give blow jobs on her knees, and doesn't want to always do 4-5 positions during intercourse with the strange men she's dating. She says "what's wrong with missionary anyway?" And "all I want is to be treated like a human being, not a throw away sex toy".
Women as a group literally could not make it any easier for men today, and still the throw away/instant gratification/porn culture of it all just persists in many young women's lives, thanks to exactly what you said... Society let men down, and has to do better to change it.
Maybe it’s my filter bubble, but I don’t hear a lot of people saying “if you want to be successful, study and go into a trade/profession.” That leaves boys without a plan, which leaves them without a future.
Well I think a interesting thing this article kind of hide with the title is that in men who identify as conservative are mostly holding steady over time with women shifting liberal and unaligned is growing.
So it makes sense that young women are not buying what conservatives are selling while young men still are at relative rates. This makes the relative difference greater overall but it's driven mostly by one side
It’s amazing that Tate, a failed athlete turned failed reality TV show participant turned literal sex-trafficker has any pull anywhere…
But the reality is that rich assholes like Peter Thiel want him and his radically regressive beliefs to be popular so they fund him and give him top spots on their platforms (e.g. Rumble, which is owned by Thiel and has him as a featured channel next to Newsmax and Alex Jones).
It’s kind of both ways - there’s a lot of messaging out there about ‘low value’ women… and that’s before a lot of messages out there against single moms and aged women.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
That’s why you have all these far right influencers scooping up young guys and feeding them all the validation they aren’t getting in a positive way from the society around them.
Idk I don’t have a solution but I do have a little boy and trying to teach him to navigate the world keeps me awake at night.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
Women: treat young men like they’re an asshole by default
Men: act like an asshole because they’re treated like one regardless
I mean it’s not really about who started it. The goal is to create a more equitable society right? So demonizing men-young men in particular—doesn’t really achieve that goal.
I’d even argue that doing so will do exactly the opposite. Young men with delicate identities aren’t receiving positive reinforcement about their being from any direction unless they already have a strong role model.
There is the big big big underlying issue that a lot of men really, really suck and make it impossible to create systems that will provide that reinforcement… so guys just have to figure it out.
Women: treat young men like they’re an asshole by default
This is different than demonizing young men.
An asshole would maybe do things like sexually harassing a woman, or give her unwanted attention, or be dangerous to her.
The issue is that women sometimes have to expect that a man could do these things for their own safety.
Like a man offering to give a woman a ride when she’s walking down the street. Or a man offering a woman a drink at the bar that she didn’t see poured.
Those could be nice gestures if the man isn’t an asshole. But if the man is an asshole, the woman could get herself killed or worse. So women have to anticipate that ANY man could be an asshole because their lives literally depend on it.
And if that translates to anticipating that ALL men are assholes, and treating all situations as such, until proven otherwise… that’s going to be upsetting to some men.
Men need to recognize that this problem is not caused by women, but instead caused by assholes. If you’re not an asshole, and someone anticipates that you are, the answer is to react with understanding and to figure out how to adjust your behaviour so that it doesn’t look like something that the evil assholes would do. (E.g. if you want to buy her a drink, let her see the server pour it)
I know that it’s hard for men to figure it out, because we don’t really have many positive role models or even instructional videos. Someone needs to bring back those instructional videos for social norms they had in the 50’s, but adjust them for modern times…make some TikToks or something, lol
And it shouldn’t need to be said, but I’m not saying that women should be throwing refused drinks in the faces of strange men. But I don’t think that’s what the original commenter meant is happening.
I think that, when women are mad at the things men do, men need to be mad at asshole men for doing those things, not at women for being victims of the assholes.
Let’s talk about dogs. You want to raise your kid to not be terrified of dogs, but dogs kill and main a lot of kids every year. So you have two choices. First, any time a dog comes near your kid, you can shout, “Stay away from that dog! They’re dangerous and could kill you!” Or you could explain to them that dogs can be dangerous. They’re tough, they have sharp teeth and strong jaws, and some are taught to be particularly dangerous for a variety of reasons. You should be wary when you meet a new dog, and should watch for signs that the dog is friendly or not, and approach it in stages if you want to be friends with it, while being wary that things can change quickly.
One says all dogs are bad, the other says any dog could be bad, and you shouldn’t assume differently before they make their intentions clear. One demonizes dogs, the other promotes due caution. Neither one gives the dog the benefit of the doubt, but one does leave the door open for the dog to be friendly.
Bro, let’s stop pretending that men are in the driver’s seat for women’s behavior. They are grown adults. I’m not saying you’re all wrong, this kind of behavior is often understandable. Having said that, lot of the toxicity I see has nothing to do with men’s actions, it’s just people bullying other people and getting a dopamine rush from it.
Stuff like saying how stupid and simple minded the male mind is in a story about boys underperforming girls in school. Things that are rooted in resentment but not directly tied to any asshole in particular, and wouldn’t be considered acceptable if they were flipped the other way around. Another one I saw recently was that men should be subjected to genital mutilation so they know what it’s like (which is a good one considering how normalized circumcision is). Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Does it come from resentment? Maybe, but since when was it appropriate behavior to take our grievances out on everyone?
What I’m saying is that there’s a lot of genuine bullying out there that can’t be justified as a reaction to others.
Grownups of all genders aren’t taking responsibility for things they say. It’s like everyone’s turning into their own little Donald trump and can say whatever fucked shit that’s on their mind, and their in-group immediately validates, excuses and reinforces it.
My problem isn’t per se in the fact that Cleese is transphobic, it’s the fact that saying to a transphobe “hey, you’re like this moronic character that was created by a transphobe” might be taken as a compliment by said transphobes, and so not have the intended effect.
They used to just be on the Internet, but that brainrot is reaching gen z. Half of my younger female coworkers openly talk shit about men.(then pull the “oh I don’t mean you” card when I give them the side eye. Like that’s less offensive)
Tons of men I’ve known endlessly talk shit about women. It’s a standard feature of our species to talk shit about the opposite gender. It’s a standard of our species to talk shit in general really.
Talking shit about a person is one thing, grouping people into categories and denigrating or dehumanizing the whole category is another.
I’m not saying either are good, but the whole grouping people and creating an us vs them attitude is very harmful to society. Much more than talking shit about Joe because he’s being a dick. There are very few situations where it’s useful such as when one group by its definition harms the other, such as slave owners, corporate executives with a fiduciary duty for profit over employees and customers, etc… In any situation where there is nuance it’s best to avoid making groups.
Hate misandry or misogyny without projecting it as a feature common to all men or women or feminists even if you feel a large portion of them exhibit that feature.
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as “don’t talk to cops”.
I’ve seen other men giving me answers to questions my wife asked to many times. Of course thats not dangerous, but thats still asshole-behaviour and you can recognise a whole lot of this behaviour everyday, if you just listen to your female coworkers instead of giving them the side eye. They probably wouldn’t feel the need to “not-you” you, if they KNEW you are not a possible asshole.
The fear of men is vastly over exaggerated. Men are still far more likely to be assaulted or murdered than women. Even when women are attacked, it’s rarely a stranger.
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as “don’t talk to cops”.
No, it’s not life insurance. It’s pathological paranoia that doesn’t effectively improve one’s safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.
If you’re not making any distinction between “belittling and straight up murder”, then you’re really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn’t make them dangerous.
I don’t think so. The Hispanics would have to travel a long way to be an illegal immigrant in my country to steal my job. Why wouldn’t they just go somewhere closer to LATAM?
How many black folks do you see bragging on social media about committing crimes and getting endorsements from other black people? The way posts like KillAllMen or any other such posts get traction on social media?
Based on your statements, I'd say "Enough" means at least one so that you can claim some moral high ground.
Which in turn make some men feel alienated and push them towards content creators like Peterson or Tate.
Which, as you say, is a choice. Their choice. They can either suck it up and not take a minority of vocal extremists as gospel, or they can become the same because they're insecure.
Listen, if I have to specifically follow what these feminists say about ‘man-hating’ content that is going viral, then that’s not very useful.
Because even if I know these feminists don’t agree what’s being posted, their views have low visibility compared to misandrist content which doesn’t help the victimization that other young men are feeling.
If a black person robs your house and he says “I robbed your house because I’m black”, you’re gonna hate black people because they commit crimes. The thing is, no one says “I robbed your house because I’m black” because it doesn’t make sense and it’s not true.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about. Specially considering that the “I hate men” feminists are very loud.
The name doesn’t make it easier though. This doesn’t happen in English, but in spanish (my language) when a man does sexism it’s called “machismo”. And we say “machismo” way more often than “sexismo”. To someone unaware, “feminist” seems like “the women version of machismo”.
In my opinion we should stop using the term “feminism” and change to a more accurate term that isn’t misleading. In the western modern society (not the USA, abortion banning troglodytes) women don’t really need that radical of change anymore, we’re almost there in gender equality, can’t risk going back by making young men afraid of the movement just because the name is no longer accurate.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about.
Then maybe they should stop wallowing in ignorance and listen to something other than an extreme. It's still their choice to react rather than think about their positions. Making someone else change because you're too scared to do it first is lazy and cheap. There's no way to scream a rational position like there is an extreme position, and you're never going to get rid of them by reacting as they do.
Stop using them as an excuse for your unwillingness to change. They're not at fault for your choices.
I suggest you read my comment again. It seems like you are replying to another dude. I don’t know what my “unwillingness to change” refers to.
I am a feminist suggesting that we should change the name from “feminism” to any other thing like “gender equality” or whatever.
Because a lot of people are politically lazy. They don’t care to inform themselves about what “feminism” means, they just heard their Andrew tate telling them that it’s a women-run society or whatever bullshit. Which would make sense if it’s the first time you heard the term, it’s right there “fem-something”.
It’s much easier to convince people that A means equal rights if A is called “equal rights”. It works too well, some people even think that china is communist because it’s ran by the communist party, and that the DPRK is democratic because the D stands for democratic.
I agree, but words are important. Men will find it hard to relate to a movement called feminism. It’s not just being uninformed. It’s being excluded by the language.
Interestingly, across six experiments conducted in nine nations and almost 10,000 participants, the results revealed that feminist women show no more hostility toward men than both non-feminists and other men. It turns out that just about everyone, including men, has a fair amount of hostility toward men.
You are technically correct. Its just not a fact that matters when engaging with feminism in a way that is based on good faith.
This is true, but it’s just like how the alt-right morphed. With the internet these days, and with social media more specifically, there are these identities wherein people try to out-____ each other: out-“leftist” each other, out-“conservative” each other, etc. So, with feminism, people wanted to “out feminist” the other feminists. For strangers. On the internet. To think they’re more hardcore. It’s fuckin dumb, but it’s fuckin everywhere, and within every ideology. You think women deserve equal rights? Well I believe women deserve REPARATIONS! You think women deserve reparations? Well, I hate MEN!
Similarly: “you think we should stop immigration? Well I think we should kill all non whites!”
No ideology is immune. I’ve seen it in every circle.
There will always be idiots, trying to claim an ideology for their own image, and who utterly misunderstand the idea itself. To be fair, though, some of those people just have really personal reasons for being drawn to an idea in the first place, and their emotions get the best of them. However, that doesn’t excuse the behavior. Because racists use the same logic. “I was robbed by black men…BLACK MEN ARE ALL CRIMINALS!” It’s boiler plate prejudice. Those feminists that hate men are falling into the same trap as racists. They generalize and slip under the current of hate. Now, it’s hard to start at the same place, because feminism has some logical backbone while racism doesn’t. But the catalyst is the same: prejudice and hate.
Yeah, some feminists hate men, but they’re small minded people who like the concept of claiming an ideology for themselves and who bastardize and undercut the goals. It’s sad, but it’s true. And it’s everywhere. The problem with it is that people who dislike the original, sound idea, will use those idiots as effigies to paint the entire idea with the worst brush available. It’s a shame.
I hate it, I consider myself a feminist because I want to claw the term back, not give it up to some assholes. It’s feminist to give men grace and understanding because vulnerability isn’t a feminine trait, it’s a human one. It’s feminists to demand paternity leave because new mothers shouldn’t be carrying the entire weight of child rearing along with a job while men are obligated to miss formative years of their child’s existence. Etc, etc
I wish I could push that message and blot out all the genuine misandrists (who almost invariably are also transphobic), but it’s an uphill battle when the assholes on the other side only give voice to those people to prove their point.
History would disagree. We’re still living in a society shaped by Quaker beliefs about sex, children, and the human body in general.
It’s telling that the article didn’t interview anyone with expertise on the history of sex or people who study sex professionally (as academic scientists and researchers). Porn is definitely more easily viewed than ever before and that may be shaping kids views of sexuality but how is that shaping adult’s views of sexuality? Why are kids special?
I’ll tell you why kids are special: It’s because it has become acceptable to assume that kids being exposed to sex of any kind is somehow “bad”. Nowhere in the article do they talk about why it is that kids aren’t learning about healthy sexual relationships: Because we hide that from them.
No one wants to talk to their kids about sex but if there’s one thing you should tell kids (not just your own!) about porn it’s this: It’s fake
It’s the classic puritanical/quaker view of sexuality. Kids should be shielded and protected from any mention of sex and sexuality. Then when they turn 18 or get into their first sexual situations a switch is flipped and they’re chastised for not “knowing better”.
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.
Children aren't quite as good as the unborn, but they're close. Advocating for children still lets you feel good about yourself without having to actually associate with children. They're a group it's pretty much OK to be paternalistic toward. If they do resent your condescension, you can easily write it off because they're just children.
I answer every question my son has honestly and in plain, easily understood language. He’s in middle school. Boy are his friends being fed some bullshit from their parents and unfettered access to the Internet. Smile and nod, kiddo, then come ask me. If I don’t know, we’ll look it up together, but I will not keep him in the dark. The dangerous thing about sex is ignorance of it. And yeah, porn ain’t real.
Its real simple. It gives them identity and something to go after in a society that offers them nothing. So they get into woodworking, hunting, fighting, only eat meat for a while or some shit.
Males are expendable, the way that all people in capitalism are expendable. But to quote Babe from animal farm: Some are more expendable than others. Males have lower impulse control and have a biological more likely to engage in high risk/ high reward. Most white males are facing the same dilemmas and contradictions around the shittiness and meaninglessness of their existence as everyone else; every one else just doesn’t have a direct pipeline to radicalism engineered for them. For years YT has been trying to steer me down the white nationalist rabbit hole, in-spite of how unappologetically leftist the programing I consume is. I’m a bit older and I’ve been around and politically aware since I was a teen and made the impulsive decision to enlist, then months later we were invading Afghanistan and then Iraq.
This same issue plagues young men from all nationalities and walks of life, not just young white men in the US. We have to collectively find a way to give meaning to peoples lives or that innate search for meaning will be taken advantage of.
“I think we should all wear the same exact clothes. Because it seems to be what happens eventually, anyway. Anytime you see a movie or a TV show where there’s people from the future or another planet, they’re all wearing the same outfit. I think the decision just gets made: “All right, everyone, from now on, it’s just gonna be the one-piece silver suit with the V stripe and the boots. That’s the outfit. We’re gonna be visiting other planets, we wanna look like a team here. The individuality thing is over.”
I’m still am apprentice, and I already make more than I ever did in my first career (20 years as a chef). Journeyman rates are over $40/ hour and once you included insurance and retirement theyre around $80/ hour. Oh and were among the lower paid locals in our state.
I walked off a jobsite because they failed to provide us with safe conditions, had the safety officer on site that day, had the local union officers follow up, contractors apologized fixed the conditions and paid me for my missed time.
If you let them joke about it, they will. If you make them follow it, they will. Safety starts and ends with you brother.
At some point it becomes suddenly, disconcertingly clear that we have very few pals left
By George Chesterton 24 July 2023 • 8:00am ‘I’m both envious of those who appear to have lots of friends and suspicious of how they’ve acquired them’
Five times a year. That’s how often I see the friends I have left. It feels like slim pickings for a man with my winning personality. What happens to male friendship in middle age? The question comes with a pang. Am I missing out, or deficient in some way? I mean, I have plenty of friends. Well, I have a decent number of friends. OK, I have a few friends.
I’ve talked myself into a kind of loneliness that’s hard to justify given that I’m surrounded by so much familial love. (“Poor widdle me,” as Kim Jong-il once sang in Team America.) I’m both envious of those who appear to have lots of friends and suspicious of how they’ve acquired them.
“Friends” is a dominant theme of the cliché-industrial complex, appearing in an endless feed of Facebook platitudes and Instagram posts. Taylor Swift said, “All you need to do to be my friend is like me”, which is either very profound or very stupid. Let’s assume it’s the former and that a definition of friendship is unconditional affection, rather than needy sycophancy. If I’m Billy No Mates, and Taylor is correct, then it means I don’t like many people and they don’t like me. So I appear to have brought this on myself.
This phobia of being clubbable is perhaps best expressed in a passage from Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22, when Colonel Korn finally consents to send Yossarian home from the war on one condition.
“What must I do?”
Colonel Korn laughed curtly.“Like us.”
Yossarian blinked. “Like you?”
“That’s right,” said Colonel Korn. “Like us. Join us. Be our pal … Become one of the boys. Now, that isn’t asking too much, is it?”
“That isn’t going to be too easy.”
To truly like a person, you need trust, and that requires emotional investment – an increasingly rare commodity as you age – so as old friends fade away, they cannot simply be replaced. The space to build trust with newcomers is just not there.
Most often your partner becomes your best friend by default, which is no bad thing, while an imperceptible drift from sociability takes place over the years – sometimes it’s because of children, sometimes physical distance, sometimes lifestyle choices, like religion or polyamory.
Lasting significance
It doesn’t help that three of my oldest friends are currently unavailable. Of the men I spent most of my youth and young manhood with, one is in Los Angeles, another lives an alternative lifestyle in Devon and the third joined me in a spectacular falling out that killed our 30-year relationship overnight (mostly my fault, naturally).
It’s easier to be blasé and picky when you are young. There are so many friends to choose from and so many relationships you can roll into and out of again without the sense of any lasting significance. Having so few friends can’t be foreseen at 21, but maturity nudges out the immediate need, with the hours dominated by family and work. Once-intense friendships blow up or become diffuse, yet I still see other men managing it better than me.
Moments of envy that other men my age have armies of besties are countered by the cynical assumption that to have so many must mean a decent proportion are false or flimsy in some way. If friendship means something, then how can it be so effortless for these mysteriously popular men, who dangle their mates like an ageing hipster’s neck chains?
The more I witness friendship groups treating Glastonbury like a middle-aged Christmas (“only six sleeps to Glastonbury”), the less I want to know. It’s the fun that really puts me off. I carry the remembrance of festivals past, which is enough to dissuade me now. It’s great if 250,000 people want to enjoy music and drugs in a pop-up town with less diversity than Antiques Roadshow, but don’t sell it to me as a return to Eden. This is the kind of sentiment that evinces comments such as “I feel sorry for you”. They’re not necessary. I already feel sorry for myself.
Design and necessity
Apparently there is a dire need for a safe space for men, which is a bit like saying grey squirrels need a safe space from red ones. But I would concede there is a particular state of ease that’s only possible for men among other men.
There is also consolation that with those few friends you have left, months or even years between meetings are written off with the wave of a hand. Just as well really. This is when you notice the unfettered affection and loyalty male friends feel for each other. It’s kept simple by design and necessity.
Having lost interest in football I’ve destroyed 50 per cent of my conversation options – and I wasn’t exactly Bantersaurus Rex to begin with. Male bonding is sometimes little more than a home-cooked version of a radio phone-in on an infinite loop.
True male friendship is paradoxical, in that it is intimate without intimacy. Men neither touch each other physically nor discuss anything directly – what is said out loud is trivial and everything important is unspoken. If a subtext is identified, it’s quickly ignored before moving on, since no man wants to turn a subtext into an actual text over a few beers.
Like a lot of things about getting older, acceptance is the only meaningful response. My friends are real. My loneliness isn’t. It’s a product of a faulty memory and an ego that hasn’t yet burnt itself out. At least we have yacht rock to talk about. During those occasional and precious tribal gatherings, you all become carriers of each other’s memories, like the shaman or village poets who guard the oral history of your collective lives.
If you want lots of friends, you will probably have lots of friends. Therefore, if I don’t have many, I must not need many to begin with. Either that or I’m unbearable. Answers on a postcard, please. But don’t expect a friendly reply.
This part stuck out to me. When I was younger I often got myself into bad situations that presented opportunities form connections through shared experiences. As I get older I’m fucking up less and when I do it’s just me trusting myself and going through it alone.
To truly like a person, you need trust, and that requires emotional investment – an increasingly rare commodity as you age – so as old friends fade away, they cannot simply be replaced. The space to build trust with newcomers is just not there.
I think the unsaid part is just time spent together- when you’re a kid it’s easy to have dozens of hours a week to hang out and bond. As you age, there’s other time commitments - kids, spouse, family, maintaining a house, etc. In order to have that emotional investment you need to get past the awkward first stages of friendship.
I think a lot of people lose/drop their hobbies, or the things that let them bond and meet other people. It’s hard to say “I dropped football and now I lost 50% of male conversation” without more info. If all your friends are only bonding over football, yeah. So find other things to do! There’s a million of them, and people are always passionate about their own interests. Find people with similar interests.
The author also mentions “it feels like they’re always just someone’s partner” and that’s very telling. Are the only men you’re engaging with those who are partners of your own spouse? Well no shit you’re not feeling like you have friends. I like my wife’s friends partners, but they’re firmly in the acquaintance category.
It’s also the societal loss of “3rd places”. There’s home, work, and then… where else do you actually meet people? And if you do, where do you connect with them? Especially low-cost and not health-damaging like a bar…
I had a good friend move to the same small town I’m in. Between work and family, we don’t get together for months on end, even though he’s a 5 min drive down the road. We want to get together, but we’re both too exhausted and burnt out.
As a once-angry young man who mellowed out somewhat (I am now an angry 30-year-old man), I do understand some of the prickliness involved, even if it doesn't apply to me anymore. I was always pretty liberal and anti-manosphere, but there is an element here that isn't "Men always have to butt in on subjects where we should be listening to women" (that definitely IS a problem, mind).
We, as men, are socialized to deal with othering in the most dogshit ways, and like rubbing salt in a wound, inevitably aggravate it. You don't talk about getting othered, unless you're getting angry about it, otherwise you're 'weak' and need to 'nut up' and 'stop being a pussy'. You can't work to solve it, because then you're a 'tryhard' and 'pathetic'. It's a kind of helplessness by being stripped of the natural tools that should be available to us, but generations of toxic masculinity have rendered anathema.
It's like being trapped in a cage, where you can see every piece of what is tormenting you, but do nothing about it except grind your teeth into dust trying fruitlessly to chew through the bars until some power, through no influence of your own, releases you. No one wants to be othered, no one wants to be seen as fundamentally contrary to participation in a common community - but many men have no way of dealing with that, and it terrifies them. The wounds never heal, but you become increasingly defensive and neurotic about it. It becomes a hair-trigger.
A lot of young men right now are probably reading the bear metaphor as more an incident of othering rather than an expression of the risk inherent to women when dealing with our current society. They aren't hearing "Jesus Christ, be a little receptive to the concerns of women, the risk calculus here is not the same risk calculus you are using", they're hearing "Women don't see us as equals, they see us as dangerous animals. We're not of a common community; we've been (or are being, or are realizing we've always been) cast out."
Obviously this gets the dander up on misogynists, but even many otherwise-feminist-leaning men will feel hurt by seeing it this way. And the reactions of some individuals - using that same 'nut up, pussy' toxic masculinity dialogue, but in 'defense' of a feminist metaphor - is twisting the knife, putting those who understand toxic masculinity back into the intensely frustrating position of trying to explain why that's a dogshit response, and making those who don't understand toxic masculinity double down in the natural, automatic reaction that they've been conditioned to embrace in response to being othered - pain. And from pain, anger.
tl;dr; The reactions of many men to the metaphor are problematic, but it's not as simple as "Bunch of sexists are unhappy that they have to consider other people" for all of them. A lot of is "Bunch of broken men are being given the exact scenario they are used to exercising their society-approved maladaptive coping skills in, with both sides effectively cheering their response on as it serves their own prejudices and preconceptions."
“Obviously this gets the dander up on misogynists, but even many otherwise-feminist-leaning men will feel hurt by seeing it this way”
Our contemporary insistence on conflating thoughts and feelings, rather than untangling the two is grievous social ill which is rarely discussed www.wildmind.org/applied/depression/…/amp
It’s pretty difficult to come up with an analogy that could bring an understanding without sounding insane. If the thought process is feeling de-humanised then examples would correlate best with physical attraction but that makes you sound insane because it kind of is.
This guy is so close but got stuck jerking off his own intellectualism half way.
As a rule masculinity and femininity are both a collection of traits. Usually defined something like this:
Masculinity is assertiveness, confidence and maybe something like independence.
Femininity is Emotional intelligence, Empathy and maybe something like team-coordination.
Now I view these groups like the hormones testosterone and estrogen. You need both to function. But the ratio between them defines whether you appear masculine or feminine.
You need to be capable of displaying both groups.
However, currently one side demonizes masculine traits, while the other side calls feminine traits gay.
The Author is close to the truth, in the sense that the traits he describes as good masculine traits shouldn’t be exclusive to men. But he looses the plot by tying the traits directly and exclusively to the genders. This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.
Because of this he concludes, that everyone should have all traits regardless of group. This is correct but looses the significance of these groups, both in terms of role models and sexuality.
He accurately points out the issues and ridiculousness of current masculinity gurus but misses why they are appealing. The need for guidance amongst young men is evident.
But let’s leave aside all discussion of what makes someone a real “man” and just aspire to become decent human beings.
This quote betrays a general misunderstanding of what the issue is. Becoming a decent human is not a problem. The issue is becoming a (good) man. Society has gone far in expanding women’s possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don’t fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.
Now Tate and company offer some form of help. Its terrible, but it speaks to the problem, while Mr. Robinson pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and just tells young man to become good humans.
Its often interesting to view gender issues through the trans lens. In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man very differently.
In my opinion this article is part of the problem driving more men to become Tate-stans and misogynists.
TL;DR: Everyone should display all traits, but the ratio is significant to determine overall appearance.
The existence of stereotypes like tomboy show that there is a link between traits and gender, but on an individual basis the ratio of traits can swap. And that’s also cool.
Also the author is an ideolog ignoring the problem he writes about.
This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.
The author is quoting here, he didn’t say that himself:
Josh Hawley, who thinks the left is waging a war on our Masculine Virtues, defines those virtues as “courage, independence, and assertiveness,” presumably qualities that women aren’t meant to have—or if they do possess them, it simply means they’re Manly women (just as Thatcher becomes an honorary man in Mansfield’s formulation)
Society has gone far in expanding women’s possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don’t fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.
I don’t think anybody should ever “perform” a gender! As soon as it becomes a performance, it is unauthentic to the person they truly are, and needs to be deconstructed. The don’t need instructions on how to ‘perform’ a gender, they need instructions on how to free themselves from these expectations.
In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man
There is nothing a trans man has to do in order to be a man. They are a man. There is nothing that could possibly make them less of a man. No instructions needed. Just be authentic to yourself.
I don’t think anybody should ever “perform” a gender!
“Perform” in a sociological sense doesn’t mean inauthentic. It simply means to fulfill a societal role. We perform constantly. I do. You do. The author does. We perform as spouses, parents, children, siblings, professionals, leaders, followers, etc.
This performance is a huge burden for me, and also for so many other people. I do very poorly, and because of that, I am not as well respected. My life would be way better if this sort of pressure didn’t exist. It makes no sense to me that I have to fulfill a specific societal role because of the gender I was born into. So I’d say yes, it very much means that performing a gender is inauthentic for a lot of people.
He does refer to a quote, but I think the “honorary man” wording comes from him. If he quotes it, the rest of the article still proves that he links these trait-groups exclusively to either gender.
Gender performance isn’t something you fake, like in a theater, it’s more something you do like performing in a sport. I should have clarified that.
Also being yourself is not an answer. Young people are struggling with exactly that. Being yourself only works, if you know what yourself is. Gender traits or role models can give great guidelines for what you strive to be. And somewhere along your growth as a person you will find things that work and things that don’t. But you need some “starting direction” because yourself is usually still a kid.
For the trans thing, my wording is a bit unclear.
I meant acting like a (stereotypical) man.
You can say that they are a man as soon as they identify as one. I would also treat people that way. But the goal of most trans people is being recognized as their identified gender, without stating it, also called passing.
If you talk to trans people, there is often a concept of performing gender. This includes fashion and voice, but also mannerisms. To some these mannerisms come naturally, some train them to be more in line with how they view themselves.
I think these mannerisms and to an extend fashion are things that young men are also looking to modify in order to pass as men.
The obvious difference being that trans men switch gender, while cis men just go from boys to men.
Gender performance isn’t something you fake, like in a theater, it’s more something you do like performing in a sport.
I really like the analogy because it implies something that also happens in reality: it is competitive. You’re seen as inferior if you aren’t good at it. Which is a huge, huge problem
But you need some “starting direction” because yourself is usually still a kid.
I think it is a fair point. But masculinity (however you define it) should not be a default, and it should not be specifically encouraged for boys to aspire to. Like, I understand the need for role models, but why is masculinity relevant here?
But the goal of most trans people is being recognized as their identified gender, without stating it, also called passing.
I think the desire of a lot of men (trans or not) to conform to gender norms is not because we genuinely enjoy being masculine, it is rather because we enjoy more respect when we conform to these gender roles. Being “less of a man” sucks because people treat you as inferior. So we are inclined to conform. I am not trans but I can imagine that some feel a higher need to “prove” their masculinity because they are constantly invalidated.
I agree, that just masculinity is a bad direction, but it helps narrow down possible directions. It’s just a very easy group you are kinda born into. A lot of people seem to need frameworks to tailor their lives after, as seen by the tate-stans, or kardashian-stans for women.
I agree, that picking traits of several different people and freestyle some of your own is a better way to do it. But that is difficult sometimes and just being told what to do seems to appeal to a large chunk of people.
Kinda like using Linux vs Windows/Mac XD
Your point about loosing at gender like loosing in sports is great. I will definitely think more about the competition aspect sometime. It definitely is a thing with men (see dick-size jokes), idk if it is the same for women, though. There are definetly insults amongst women (slut/bitch) but I’m not sure if it has the same “less of insert gender” connotation.
To address this there probably needs to be a similar shift in gender roles for men, as there was for women. Women now are displaying a lot of traditionally male traits, while vegan men are called gay (derogatorily).
Idk how that shift will happen, but I think the first step would be for everyone to accept anger as an emotion. This would have multiple effects. First the “women are emotional” argument is moot, just look at crime rates. Secondly recognizing it as an emotion removes a lot of the stigma, thereby allowing men to deal with it instead of repressing. And lastly it might remove the “ranking” of emotions. Ranking in the sense, that when a woman cries and a man gets angry in response to something the man is expected to take care of the woman. This usually leads to more repressing.
All in all, I like the queer community, even if I’m mostly straight, just because I don’t have to compete in the gender game. Just not caring gives me a lot of confidence, ironically making me more masculine in traditional settings. XD
kind of feel weird about you both using trans men as demonstrating your argument without either of you actually being trans. there are as many kinds of trans men as there are cis, and you can find examples of those of us who enjoy conforming to stereotypical masculinity and those of us who don’t
it’s also fairly presumptuous to assume every trans person’s goal is to pass, and also to presume the intent behind the goal of passing
honestly even presuming that trans men are asking how to be men, instead of defining it for themselves, is very presumptuous
like, the points you’re making, in general, aren’t bad. but it kind of feels icky to presume a minority’s goal and to also use it as an argument, when that minority’s reasoning is wide and varied. i think most people don’t like being treated like a monolith and i think that applies here, too
trans men were also largely unnecessary for the arguments you were making. a lot of it could be said for people who want to or enjoy (or don’t!) presenting masculine, regardless of sex assigned at birth. the answer to the author’s question, why should we have positive examples of masculinity, really boils down to, because some people like being masculine, but not toxic. trans men aren’t really special in that regard
anyways, keep in mind that i don’t speak for all trans men, but this trans man felt weird about this, like i’m being referenced as a demographic with no regard for what being in the demographic is like. thanks for reading
mensliberation
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.