Modern men: Navigating life, relationships, and self-identity
The idea of what it means to be a man has evolved significantly over the last century. We can build a fresh perspective on understanding masculinity beyond the stereotypical confines of strength, stoicism, and dominance. I appreciate Deimos trying out new groups and allowing topics to flourish. I could see this group having healthy discussions about the diverse experiences and expectations of men in today's society.
I envision topics on personal anecdotes, insights, and questions. I wanted to list out a few possibilities for future discussions that are top of mind.
- The changing roles and responsibilities of men in personal and professional life.
- The impact of societal norms and expectations on men's mental health.
- Embracing vulnerability and emotional openness.
- Men's role in promoting gender equality and mutual respect.
- The significance of self-care and well-being in men's life.
- How men can effectively communicate their emotions, needs, and concerns.
- Relationships, expectations, and stereotypes
While not comprehensive, it's a start of areas we may consider. What are your thoughts on what this group could be?
EDIT - Grammar and Summary 7/9/2023 @3 pm mountain
Hello, everyone. It's encouraging to see such in-depth and thoughtful conversations on ~life.men. I wanted to take a moment to recap the significant themes I read up to this point. This is high level, so please correct me if I got it wrong.
Our discussions around Stoicism have been quite enlightening, and we've recognized its potential to encourage self-control and inner resilience. Nevertheless, we've also acknowledged its potential misuse, which might inadvertently promote unhealthy aspects of masculinity. This is a subject that requires more nuanced exploration.
We've unanimously expressed the need for a supportive environment for men of all identities. This includes cis, gay, trans, and men of all other identifications. Despite potential challenges such as toxicity and inactivity, many believe this forum can serve as a respectful and positive space to engage in discussions about contemporary masculinity.
Conversations have emphasized challenging traditional gender norms and fostering inclusivity. There's been a strong consensus against defining masculinity by outdated stereotypes. We've expressed a shared commitment to creating an environment welcoming everyone, regardless of gender identity. We also acknowledge the role of diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds in shaping our understanding of gender, which we deeply value.
The topic of men's role in promoting gender equality has been prominent. We agree on the importance of men as allies in this movement. Tackling the rigid roles defined by patriarchal norms is crucial, as is having open and transparent conversations on these issues. Progress in gender equality benefits everyone - it's not a zero-sum game.
We've also delved into gender norms, roles, and the usage of gendered language. It's been encouraging to see such scrutiny of societal expectations and a strong emphasis on promoting universally beneficial values and inclusivity. There's a shared understanding of the complexity of gendered language and how it can both define personal identity and represent broader affiliations.
We've explored varied experiences in male-specific spaces. From the importance of representing all demographics to discussing the challenges of modern fatherhood, we've covered extensive territory. There's a shared commitment to guard against potential toxicity and ensure balance in all our discussions.
We have expressed the importance of focused discussions on men's experiences. Challenging assumptions about masculinity and addressing men's issues from multiple perspectives can impact our society.
I'm new to Tildes and not sure where to go from here. Given all the valuable insights and themes we've gathered, how can we adopt draft guidelines for our community? I suspect we can see how this develops organically, but I appreciate approaching things intentionally. Thanks for all the comments and discussions. It has me thinking much more broadly!
The word "stoicism" can mean two things.
The philosophical school of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.
A general tendency to exaggerate force, negate vulnerability, refuse help, deride emotion and celebrate pain that is typical of some models of contemporary masculinity.
EDIT:
We should probably use a different word for each of those things, but I can only control the words I use myself 🤷🏿‍♂️
The problem I see with "stoicism" as it is often applied is that it is used as a cover-up to not care about things, or for general cynicism. Some stuff should affect you, because it isn't right - and not only when it directly impacts you personally. Yes, you can go through life saying "oh well" to pretty much everything, but I strongly believe ethical action comes from an internal drive to want to see more good and less bad in the world. And that drive is severely dulled if you spend most of your time telling yourself that it is better if you just don't let things affect you.
Some guy I know started a whole charity because he couldn't stand seeing people he met as a doctor go hungry. He could have decided - like, let's be honest, most of us - that it was not worth getting aggravated about it, but he didn't, he let it affect him, and the world got a tiny bit better because of it.
This is getting into the age-old confusion in which some people are talking about the classic philosophy Stoicism - which, to your point, defines man by how he interacts with the society in which he participates - and the more modern interpretation of the word which means withdrawn and apathetic. So people often end up talking past one another.
(And to illustrate how deep the confusion lies - philosophy-Stoics also talked about apatheia, but it had a different meaning than the modern apathetic!)
I'm not sure where the idea on this thread comes from that the contemporary colloquial meaning of stoic connotes apathy. Stoic is supposed to describe an attitude of pushing through hardships without complaining. It's about not letting your emotions take control.
Grieve but don't waste away. Be joyous but don't go wild. Get angry but don't act out of anger. You are allowed to feel, but your feelings shouldn't override what you know must be done. Sure, there can be a toxicity to it when it is taken to an extreme of never showing emotion even when it's warranted, but that's just that: taking it to an extreme.
I don’t know how you haven’t heard of people using the word stoic in this way. Terms with complex ideas get boiled down to their simplest possible meaning and often gain new meanings as time goes on. Its just how language works.
I think the answer is in psychology. The present conversation around toxic masculinity (transparency---I am a big hairy fortysomething guy) puts a lot of weight on the harm caused by generations of fathers who can't say "I love you" to their sons, and the persistent stigma of male emotional expression as a sign of weakness, femininity, homosexuality etc.
And the conversation around work-life balance, in a time where work seems to yield fewer and fewer rewards (e.g. house, healthcare, savings), makes stoicism's act of proudly taking one's lumps on the road to success look increasingly farcical---the road doesn't seem to go anywhere, success is nebulous, there's no virtue in a stiff upper lip.
Stoicism plays nicely into the capitalist, patriarchal and monotheistic imperative to stay in one's lane and look out for Number One at a time when collective action has growing appeal. I guess it also makes psychiatrists rich. I think now in particular fears of a transhumanist elite (i.e. the billionaire class), bolstered by economic and environmental despair from the up and coming generation, are provoking a skepticism towards stoicism, like it's just a way for petit bourgeois to hold their nose while participating in a bogus system. So the idea of the anti-stoic has pop currency.
Perhaps I just misread the comment, then.
But it's not unusual to have words change meaning to the opposite, or even to mean both one thing and the opposite at the same time. See also "inflammable", "literally".
The natural evolution of language is not the same thing as straight up misuse of words. Saying "stoic" when you really mean "cynic" or "nihilist" or simply "asshole" is not organic linguistics, it's a mistake.
Stretching a definition is one thing; using the wrong word altogether is quite another.
Do you use "awesome" to mean "inspiring awe"? Do you use "terrific" to mean "scary"? Do you use "gay" to mean "happy"?
Words change meaning over time. It's been a fact of life in English for centuries. You're just noticing this one because it's happening during your lifetime. The changes that occurred before you learned English are just
"the way things are".
Future generations will use the new meaning for "stoic", and never know that their ancestors (us) used to use it a different way.
Do you use the word "red" when you wish to convey "blue"? The fact that language evolves does not mean that accurate labels are not important. I can think of a few scenarios in which misusing a term would be highly inappropriate if not unacceptable.
I am aware that definitions change over time. Saying what I mean is not an attempt to fight evolution; evolution will happen regardless of my actions. I don't care what these words will mean in a thousand years, I'm using them right here and now. Currently the accepted definitions of "stoicism" and "cynicism" are not the same thing. I have no idea what they might mean in the future, but I don't care because I'm not living in the future. I only care what they mean right now, and I choose to use them appropriately (based on their current meaning) because I want people to understand the things I say to them.
You choose a rather poor example here. Color is famously language-centric with many languages making little distinction between blue and green. What "blue" and "green" referred to has also changed over time.
Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't say "green," isn't it?
No, I've literally never heard it used that way, and I've heard it used quite a bit throughout my life. Looking around at various dictionaries, I don't get that implication either in any formal definitions. Stoic may refer to an apathetic affect, but the implication is that that unaffected disposition is a matter of great personal restraint, not a lack of interest or concern. To that end, while they may describe a similar outward appearance, "stoic" has a directly antithetical implication from "apathetic".
In the context of masculinity, you might use it to describe a man who doesn't cry at his wife's funeral, not because he doesn't grieve but because he feels he has to maintain composure and be a pillar for others to lean on. There's still room to argue about the toxicity of that, but it's a far different thing than being indifferent.
I'm genuinely curious what age range you're in given your certainty in that connotation and the fact that others seem to be backing you up on that. I imagine it must be quite a recent shift in language, and an unfortunate one at that. I can't think of any other word that quite represents that same meaning.
I think you are right about how it's often applied and it usually fits definition 2 lou added for stoicism.
However stoicism as a philosophy which is what Lorie was getting at isnt apathetic its far from it. Marcus Aurelis does push people to internally strive for better and not remain uninvolved. An important quote associated with him as a philospher “Often injustice lies in what you aren’t doing, not only in what you are doing.” — Marcus Aurelis meditations, 9.5
I would say stoicism as a philosophy has aspects of
there's how you let things affect you and how you choose to affect the world.
I hope I am not getting too tangential, but stoicism as a philosophy has allowed me to create healthy boundaries for people who show toxic or manipulative traits so i dont feel guilty for saying no to their demands. It has helped me deal with my negative thinking patterns on expectations I felt society had for me. It has not stopped me from donating my time to causes or pushing the world to be a better place.
I think what's more dangerous is the Just World view most people hold as an idea, the idea that someone's suffering is probably because they did something bad and deserve it. It feels so pervasive in our society, and I think it's something we need to actively fight against as a mindset.
I do overall though agree with your point I just feel it's a different mindset that leads to the apathy and is wrongly attributed to stoicism. We don't control the definitions people make and associate with words.
Your kind of post and the discussion it's generated so far is what I'm hoping comes of this space.
Discussion for and about men online tends to break down badly in a few ways, none of which are good and almost all of which lack nuance. To me, there is so much we can dive into, consider, pull apart, and reconstruct. We can examine all the different situations and parameters that can turn a positive trait into something toxic and vice versa. We can evaluate the ways in which the paradigms we hold work and work well, and the ways in which they don't and we should change them.
Stoicism and strength aren't fundamentally bad, as you mentioned, but they also can be, as others have mentioned. That's a challenging situation. Examining and honoring that complexity -- rather than just dumping something wholesale into the "good" or "bad" bin -- is what I would most like to see here.
Even dominant can be a good trait. It doesn't have to mean domineering. It's about using the traits to do good rather than use it to excuse bad behaviour. Leadership qualities can be a force for good too.
Strength, stoicism, and dominance are often used as traits to sketch some sort of paternalistic ĂĽbermensch as being desirable. But none of those have to be that way.
Recently, I have started dating a non-binary person. Meeting them, talking about their experience and even re-exploring my own sexuality has given me lots of opportunities for introspection on gender, self-expression and all the bagage that comes with the label 'man'. I am very interested in what this little nook of the internet can become.
For clarity, I'm a cis straightish white man, he/him, and quite comfortable in being a man for all my 30 odd years of existence. However, this experience is teaching me that I only am comfortable in the label 'man' because I have a broader definition of it then many of my peers.
Gender is a tricky thing, even for cis gender men, and like me, everyone posting in ~life.men will have a slightly different definition of what it means to be a man. Perhaps this will cause overlap with subjects that, some might argue, should reside in ~lgbt, ~life.women or even just silly things such as hobbies or aspects of life that are so traditionally male-dominated that for many, they are simply part of masculinity. This is all fine, and further serves to show the many interesting aspects of how we perceive and experience our gender.
As I see it, this place can be used to post everything, from very stereotypical (for western culture at least) male paradigms such as fitting in, asserting your place in a male-dominated space, questions on dating and advice on interacting women, advice on fatherhood, mental health where it pertains to masculinity or male roles, etc... But it should also be a place where we can discuss the broader concept of masculinity outside of the binary. This can include discussion on challenging traditional male values, sharing alternative role models, talking about the different ways in which we can present ourselves. I wish it would go without saying, but this should also be a place inclusive to trans men.
I'm not sure if anything like this can exist on the internet nowadays, but if it's possible anywhere, I'd put my money on Tildes. Let's hope we can keep this place respectful, help eachother and learn a bit along the way.
I can't think of a demographic more suited to participate in this subgroup than trans men. To live one's life as a man when society largely expects otherwise, and to accept the possibility of harsh social repercussions because of it, that – pardon the expression – takes balls.
Moreover, if we're concerned with understanding what it means to be a man in the world today, who better to ask than someone so convinced of their maleness that they'll endure serious bullshit to embody it? How could such a man not have salient thoughts on the subject to contribute?
That was oddly beautiful and poetic. :')
To butcher a line from Ron Swanson - "Everything I do is what a man would do, because I am a man."
To use a line I've heard before "A 'real' man would just do what he wants and not care about what you think a man would do."
I had an open group forum once that was about 50/50 men and women and most of the issues being brought up were women's issues, which I'm honestly fine with it was pretty insightful, but I had to speak up when they started discussing Always removing the female symbol from their box or something like that. I said something akin to "Does Always define what it means to be a woman? Do you really relate and identify that much with a box of tampons?"
Somehow we need to always challenge masculinity these days - never to accept all masculinity or promote a health inclusion of 'masculine' things. You know what? I love being outdoors, in the woods, alone, and I also cried at the end of Coco. Gladiator too. And isle of dogs. I actually cry at a lot of movies. I also like to work on cars, get dirty, and have a beer in silence. None of these things require 'challenging' but that is what I most often see online and in media.
I'm fine with Harry Styles wearing a dress. I'm fine when Fat Mike does it too but neither of them are redefining masculinity to me.
I think the challenging part of it is "why is this list considered masculine." I know plenty of women whom crave a beer in silence even more than most men I know.
I'll posit a thing that tends to get equal and opposite reactions across conservatives and liberals. The good ones will get real introspective.
If your son starts being interested in construction equipment, do you start buying him construction toys? Does it bother you? How about for your daughter?
If your young daughter is interested in dressing as a ballerina, do you buy her a tutu? Does it bother you? How about for your son?
And what I've noticed, when asking these questions to people, it sort of reveals some values when they are completely honest with themselves.
Liberals generally have no problem letting boys do the tutu, while conservatives tend to. This is somewhat expected. But many liberals expressed hesitance at letting their girl don the tutu, which was shocking to me.
The two things are roughly equivalent: Needlessly gendered things that get pushed on one or the other and reenforced in weird ways.
My simple answer is that "Gender" and "Masculine/feminine" are defined by culture and in (my) Western culture getting dirty and doing things that will callous your hands is generally masculine. This leads to my previous statement about 'challenging' masculinity. I didn't want to draw to many parallels to 'femininity' in the US at least because that can come off as complainy - but much of the discourse surrounding gender in the US has two themes. 'traditional masculinity' is bad and women are able to do masculine things. My partner asked me one time "What if you have a girl and she wants to have tea parties and play with dolls?" And I replied "then I'll have tea parties and play with dolls with her?"
Would I show my daughter how an engine works? Fuck yeah. Would I support my son doing ballet? Hell, it's good for flexibility and is an art in itself, though I would be worried with everything you hear about professional ballet so maybe it can just stay a hobby.
I used to have a regularly planned Sunday mimosa brunch with a bunch of work colleagues. I do most of the cooking in my house.
The tutu question is easy for me. Male ballet dancers usually don't wear them and any son of mine likely won't have the frame for the parts that call for being really light / picked up and stuff so he can practice but it probably won't be a good fit but if he wants to be a princess for Halloween, well that's what dress up is for, right? Same for a daughter but both of them better know how to change their own tires, do basic house maintenance, and prepare a flavorful meal.
I'm not American so I don't agree to some of your points about men, but I think we should include the conversation about men from an international perspective and respect of each other values. I hope life.men don't turn into a war of idiologies as flamewars of Reddit.
Could you elucidate on what about the comment you're replying to is specific to American culture? I don't see anything about it that would be specific to the US or North America. I'd frankly be interested in discussions about examining traditional male roles in cultures besides the US and the West as well.
One example identify himself as "cis, white male, he/him", not sure what other west country men identify themselves as that.
I see that a lot here in Australia. I think this practice has spread throughout the Anglosphere, and possibly through much of the West. As transgender people and their issues have become more prominent, some of the rest of us are showing solidarity with, and compassion for, transgender people by sharing our pronouns. It signals inclusivity and welcoming to transgender people.
Of course, the context would be very different in countries where transgender people weren't accepted, or were outlawed, or where homosexuality was not accepted or was outlawed - and there are are lots of countries like that around the world. There's no way someone in a country like Uganda or Saudi Arabia is going to label themself as a "cis white male" (or the equivalent)!
But, while labelling oneself as "cis, white male, he/him" (or something equivalent) isn't a worldwide practice, it's definitely not exclusive to the USA.
Most men even in the USA don't identify themselves that way either, myself included. The vast majority of men are cis, straight, and use he/him pronouns for themselves. I don't think there's anything wrong with assuming the norm in the absence of anything else while being open to calling other people whatever they want to be called when they tell you.
I agree with all of this, right down to hoping it would go without saying. Of course, saying it is probably still best.
I would want anybody to feel like they can post about whatever manly things they want here and feel safe and heard, whether that be from gay men, trans men, or really... anybody who wants, and not be attacked, disrespected, or gatekept.
I am interested in what other men deal with, whoever they are. It is because I will never have some perspectives or experiences that I am interested in hearing them.
Eventually I will figure out how to tactfully discuss being a regular straight guy who carries all the heavy things, but I expect to mostly listen and offer helpful thoughts only if I'm pretty confident for a while.
There was not unanimous agreement that there even should be a group for men. So one of my hopes is that the folks who thought we couldn't be trusted to behave ourselves were mistaken. If reddit of all places managed to have a few small mens sections that were mostly OK, we surely can pull it off here.
Is this supposed to be group for men, or a group about men? Because I'm much more interested in the latter, and I think it fits the site's philosophy better as well. If the group's organizing principle is to focus on men and topics relating to them, that leaves the door open to anyone who wants to contribute.
I frankly don't feel the need for a particular safe space for men here, as I would hope that sensitive topics would be handled by the userbase tactfully and respectfully, no matter what group they arise in. If this is intended to be such a place, I doubt I'll participate much. That's not to say I can't understand the desire for such spaces, just that I'm not particularly interested in them myself.
TL;DR: I said anybody and I meant anybody.
Perhaps the phrasing I used there could be confusing, so this is a good chance to reflect on my words.
As it sounds like you do, I assume that any member of the site may post to any group.
I meant "group for men" the same way I would have meant "group for pets."
As mentioned in my earlier post, I think anybody should be able to post and I did say feel safe.
Nobody is truly safe anywhere, but if it were up to me, all people should be able to at least feel like they are sometimes for a while. Not only men, or only women, or [insert any group of people].
Anyway, I do think anybody, including people who are not men, should feel safe to post whatever good faith contributions they like, without being attacked, disrespected, or gatekept.
I would hope that folks that do not identify as men would be mindful enough to not use this area to be disrespectful toward men, the same way I feel like I may freely comment in ~life.women but would be mindful not to be disrespecting women if I were to do so.
These are all only my own thoughts, however. I was just agreeing with the guy above me, and will certainly not be enforcing any of the above.
A major goal I would hope to see would to be a catching point for people who are scared, frustrated or at all concerned about those points, and providing a safe outlet to address any concerns with the changing state of masculinity in the modern era. A lot of those are concerns that I grew up with from my dad, and eventually internalized, had to do with not being manly enough, doing girly things, and just not being super butch, I guess.
However, similarly to something I saw expressed in ~life.women when I was in there, we shouldn't just have this be a support group with doomscrolling content. There's male-specific health stuff that can be discussed, "manly" stuff that can be brought up (like... conventionally masculine activities?). These discussions don't have to be to the detriment anybody who isn't a man, and could/should be fully inclusive.
I do sort of see ~life.men not being as active as ~lgbt or ~life.women because men are in a way the Internet default, even if Tildes seems to be attracting a broader audience. My point is more that there's not a need for a safe or specific space for man issues, in a way. That said, I look forward to contributing as I can, and hope this group shapes up nicely.
EDIT: I spoke out of turn in that last paragraph. I'm keeping it there for context, but would like to apologize because this doesn't seem to align with other people's experience, and was basically a half-formed thought I gave too much credence to.
I'm experiencing a strong, visceral disagreement to this, but I don't fully understand your argument for why men don't need a specific space, so I don't want to start yelling at strawmen.
My perspective is that the concept of what it is to be a man is in massive flux right now. I don't think there's ever been a greater need for men to have a space of their own where they can try to figure out what that means for them.
Maybe it's that I've never felt the need as a man, and I'm just painting with too wide a brush. I have never felt uncomfortable discussing men's issues in public online spaces because generally I wouldn't be attacked for it. But the reason there are places like /r/twoxchromosomes was the lack of a place for women to discuss issues pertaining to them.
I get your point and agree, if for no other reason than it can aid in vunlerability in what is known to be a safer space to express these ideas.
Appreciate your perspective. And obviously we mostly agree, so please take the rest of this as discussion and not argument.
I agree that in many circumstances, men can discuss men's issues without being publicly attacked - if what they are discussing is generally in agreement with the current cultural milieu. As an example, men can discuss wanting to be more vulnerable without much problem.
On the other hand, men who want to discuss things that run contrary to what is generally currently accepted as "correct" behavior will be vilified. An example of that one is a man who believes that stoicism/emotional grit is an important part of his masculinity and wants to learn how to be less expressive - I think you'll agree that he would likely be jumped all over. (After all, even the original post here lists "3. embracing vulnerability and emotional openness".)
My counter to this is that some men (who feel alienation for one reason or another) do seek out explicitly male spaces and that so many of these places are toxic harmful wastelands is a tragedy. While as you said "male" is default on the internet, few places explicitly cater to these kinds of discussions, or in other words male privilege on the internet isn't actually helpful for these topics.
I'm honestly intrigued if ~life.men becomes one of the few places on the internet where masculinity (and all its facets) can be discussed in a positive, life-affirming way which I almost never see on the internet. When I saw deimos added ~life.men, my immediate gut reaction was that it'd become a reactionary poisonous board like so many other men's forums. But the first few threads I've read here give me hope.
Honestly, I don't have any defense for what I said there, I probably shouldn't have said it, considering the responses, and the fact that looking at it, I basically shat out a half-baked opinion that was not really relevant or constructive.
I would hope so. Similar topics have gone over fine here, and I doubt having a men-specific group will change anything to alter that, especially with the swiftness of the moderation here when things have taken a turn towards the hairy, messed up, or controversial.
Meh, maybe somebody else held the same opinion silently and will read this exchange and benefit. :)
I encourage you to have faith, though your skepticism is certainly warranted. As a newcomer to Tildes and a fervant, feminist, female participant in positive male spaces online and offline... I feel confident in saying that we're in good company.
It's one of the reasons I decided to hang out here in the first place, and I've mostly distributed my invites to other people who are able to discuss gender intelligently with nuance and respect.
Imo that really doesn't belong here.
If this is supposed to be a "safe space" for men, the focus should actually be on men's issues, like the suicide rate, having a positive mental attitude, dealing with work and stress, building relationships and connections, etc. things that men struggle with.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Dare I say most of your list are derivative of and caused by gender inequality.
Men's mental health being seen as 'lesser,' or conversely, men with mental health issues been seen as 'lesser men' is just another part of the patriarchy.
Rinse/repeat for emotional intelligence for building relationships and coping with stress.
The truth is that as men, we need to stand with women to be treated as equals. And part of that means respecting and helping solve their problems as well.
Mutual respect means getting the other half of the population to see your issue and work to help resolve it. Not segregating the spaces and leaving each half to figure it out on their own.
Generally speaking, I agree with your post, but I wanted to highlight this language, as I think it has effects you weren't intending. Categorizing men's issues as stemming from gender inequality and/or the patriarchy often comes across as very dismissive of the challenges men face. We don't need to get exhaustive, but far more men commit suicide, far more men are imprisoned, far more men are murdered, fewer men attend higher education... blah blah blah.
There are a lot of legitimate challenges that men are facing. To categorize these as resulting from men's better position in society isn't fair to the men who are struggling, in my opinion.
There’s a common refrain in feminist circles that “the patriarchy hurts men too”. The concept of patriarchy often gets distilled down to “men have it better than women”, but that’s not really accurate to what the word tries to capture. Patriarchy includes the idea that there are rigid gender roles for men and women, which is one of the things that harms men specifically. Things like violence, suicide, and a deprioritization of male life in situations like crises or warfare or even the workplace are all issues that are, at least in part, products of the rigidity of the societal gender script applied to men.
Also, when we evaluate patriarchy in the sense of a hierarchy, with men being “above” women, it doesn’t mean that “men have it better than women”. It instead means that men at large are generally put in positions of power or advantage over women. This can and does negatively impact men as well. Consider the pressure many men feel to be the “provider” or to self-sacrifice, even to extremes, for the good of their wife or children. Even though, in that situation, the man is in “power” over others, it is not necessarily a blessing to him either. Consider how that might negatively impact not only him, but the quality of his relationships with his family.
Central to feminist theory is the idea of “agency”, which is someone’s ability to act on their own terms, in ways that are meaningful and fulfilling to them. Increasing agency is a way of dismantling patriarchy because it to affords people the latitude to make their own choices independent of a strongly gendered script for their lives. The idea of gender equality is the idea of maximizing agency for everybody. It’s about uncoupling gender from the expectations one has thrust upon them, so that people can better choose their own path and, while on that path, interact with others as equals.
I say all of this because, online, all of this tends to get completely lost whenever discussions of feminism or gender equality come up. The word “patriarchy” itself tends to derail conversations so badly that I generally avoid using it at all.
But I also say all of this because I think it’s entirely possible to use the lens @vord is using without having it come at the expense of men like you identified.
The biggest lie we’ve ever been sold about gender is that men and women are opposites, and that advances for one come at the expense of the other. This isn’t true and it’s the root of so much friction and aggravation on this topic. Improving women’s agency benefits men, just as improving men’s agency benefits women. It’s not a zero-sum situation, but is instead a complementary one.
I think the issues you identified as affecting men are hugely important. I hope you don’t feel dismissed by what I wrote here, because I genuinely do share your concerns. From my perspective though, I do see these intersecting with gender inequality, but I see that not as a dismissal but as a fundamental part of the structure that allows those problems to exist in the first place. Addressing gender inequality, to me, includes addressing those issues for men.
No, I think you expressed yourself very well. And I agree with you.
The point of my original post - which I think I may not have expressed very well - was that it's important to spell things out, in the way that you did, when referencing things like the patriarchy and/or gender inequality as the root cause of men's problems. The terms are simply too loaded to assume that we're all thinking about them the same way.
You could fully maximize agency for everybody and still end up with wildly divergent outcomes because there are well known differences in how the male and female brain work (I'm talking statistically here, at the large population level). I don't believe that some abstract notion of "the patriarchy" is responsible for the general stereotype that men will tend to organize themselves hierarchically and women will tend to act more cooperatively. If that's the case, then for example men will always rise to power in large organizations or corporations because you all large organizations will be hierarchical and a group can only grow so large without a hierarchy. Men are more likely to throw themselves into a hyperfocus that they dedicate every waking hour to for years and decades, so they will naturally rise in any number of environments through sheer effort. On average they don't feel the same internal biological pressure to have children that women do, or if they do it will frequently come later in life because there is no biological rush for them, giving them more time to invest into developing specialized expertise at a higher level. They have a much higher tolerance for risk (which is sometimes great, like starting a company, and sometimes bad, like subway surfing).
I don't think many people believe that "men and women are opposites" literally. But also, I don't think its misogynistic to believe that men and women are different. Of course everyone should have equal opportunity and as much agency as they can get, nobody would seriously argue otherwise, but if the outcomes are still unequal (and they will be, because men and women are different) I think many in the feminist movement would still say something is wrong.
I promise I'm not saying this to be combative, but I don't know that I follow a lot of your conclusions? I kind of sat on your comment and read and re-read it several times over yesterday and today, trying to figure it out for myself. If I'm way off the mark in this response, please let me know.
The idea that men tend to organize hierarchically and will thus dominate hierarchies seem separate to me -- same with rising through effort. An innate gender-related trend won't nearly have as much effect on the outcomes of a social hierarchy as the manner in which the hierarchy is structured and the inputs that affect it. Furthermore, traits that appear more in women could also be used for outsize benefit in hierarchical structures or as measures of success (e.g. women collaborating to "climb the ladder" or achieve more).
I definitely agree with you that there are differences between men and women -- understanding those differences and evaluating their effects is a big part of increasing agency in general. You're right to call out my phrasing of men and women being opposites. That part would better be stated as "in opposition" which is the way I should have phrased it the first time (although, to be fair, the "treated as opposites" paradigm was genuinely the case when and where I grew up, but we've moved pretty far past that now). Advances for one are often seen as coming at the expense of the other, and I can see why that kind of thinking exists -- both because it can feel true, and because it's a good way of driving social conflict that some people benefit from. Nevertheless, I think it's ultimately a misdirection. Men benefit when women have agency just as women benefit when men have agency.
When it comes to equal outcomes, that encompasses a very complex set of measurements. There are a lot of different dimensions to consider, and we have to look at what goes into those as well, lest the measurements succumb to Goodhart's law. I think you're right that some feminists would have problems with equal outcomes simply because it's very easy to have something that appears nominally equal but isn't. This is actually why I think a lot of men's issues get ignored, because they often get looked at as "better" in nominal ways, and that overlooks a reality that isn't captured by a single measurement.
Again, in saying all of this, if I'm way off from what you're saying or completely misunderstanding you, please let me know.
I guess in theory they could be separate. But I just think it’s more likely that people who naturally organize hierarchically will be better at competing to move up the hierarchy, and will opt out of hierarchical structures less often. If you don’t want to “play the game” then you won’t win.
Why do you need to understand the differences to increase agency? If we just give people freedom to pursue whatever goals they have, isn’t that the same as increasing agency? However, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be happier or more fulfilled ironically. As has been noted many times, western women have more agency now than they’ve ever had, and their happiness has gone down over time. I’m glad that they are no longer dependent on men to survive, but the flip side of that is that they all pursue the same 5% of men on dating apps (literally filtering out all men who are shorter than 6’ tall for example) while simultaneously complaining that they can’t find anyone to date, commit, or get married.
It doesn’t just feel true, it is true (sometimes). For example a higher ratio of women going to college means a lower ratio of men going to college. This is mathematically true. And we know that women are less likely to marry down economically and are less likely to marry down educationally. They’re all less likely to date or marry younger men. That leads to a subclass of men with no future family prospects and the corresponding social ills that come along with that.
That isn’t what I said. What I said was that providing equal opportunity would still lead to unequal outcomes because of various differences, and I think many feminists would still complain about the outcomes being unequal.
100%, if you think someone “has it good already” then you aren’t interested in thinning about what problems they have.
I think the last point we agree on is a good starting place. Understanding the issues that men face requires an understanding of our situations and any differences that play into that. You asked earlier in your comment specifically why we need to understand the differences, and I think that's a big part of where we see it play out. A big part of increasing agency in general is about looking for all the areas in which it is limited or broken down, which we can't really do without increasing our understanding of things in general. I think a lot of men here have expressed a want for the understanding of the issues they face, because those things often get glossed over or dismissed. Listening to them and learning about that is a good thing.
I also agree that increasing agency doesn't always lead to better happiness. Freedom is like that, where our choices can lead to negative consequences, heartbreak, sadness, etc. Agency on its own is still valuable to me though, not just happiness in isolation.
One point I will push back on is where you talk about college ratios being mathematically true. You're correct in that specific sense, but I don't necessarily think the conclusion follows. Ratios and percentages hide sizes. It's entirely possible for, say, the number of men and women attending colleges to increase substantially and simultaneously if colleges increase their enrollment, or new ones open, for example. If we are using college as a measure of success, focusing on gender ratios in enrollment means we're not looking at the ratio of people attending college versus people who don't. Examining that could be a better avenue for addressing the current situation depending on the numbers (though even this is a simplification).
That leads in to what I was I was talking about earlier with regards to single measures. There are other pathways to success outside of college (vocational schools, apprenticeships, employer-based training, etc.) that a focus on colleges specifically doesn't take into account. It's a narrow view of a much larger and more complex situation.
Personally speaking, as a teacher I'm pretty passionate about breaking the idea that college is synonymous with success and would love to see better pathways to economic self-sufficiency in the US. I think there is way too much status and respect afforded to college enrollment and degrees and would love to see that paradigm broken. This, to me is one of the ways we could improve the outcomes of both men and women without pitting them against one another. Unfortunately, I'm also realistic in that these are a bit of a pipe dream at the moment because we don't see a lot of movement on them. I do think many are currently suffering as a result, including a lot of men in particular.
What conclusion do you think doesn’t follow? We know that women use education level in their sexual selection process. We know that the ratio of women to men in college is > 1 and increasing. The only logical conclusion is that means some men will get shut out of the relationship market and create a growing permanent underclass. This is a clear case where women’s increased agency comes at a cost to men’s agency (and society at large). It’s also bad for women, who complain about not being able to find a match which leads to their increasing unhappiness too. The logic is sound. You let me know when progressives start talking about needing colleges to have hard ratios of 50/50 by gender and then we’ll talk about progressives and feminists wanting equality.
It’s a laudable goal but unrelated to the current reality, where college graduates have higher lifetime earnings and therefore at least a higher level of that type of success.
Here is where it breaks down for me: the number of American men getting a college degree has increased over time. The percentage of American men as a proportion of the total population getting a college degree has also increased over time. Using gender ratio as a sole measure hides this. If we are using earning a college degree as a proxy for relationship attainment (which isn't something I think is sound either), then men have a better chance than in the past of engaging in a relationship with a woman who prioritizes a college degree in her partner.
This is probably an unsatisfying argument to you, and it is to me as well, in part because I disagree with a lot of the premises the whole thing is based on in general (this line of thinking says nothing of equity in access to college, for example). I ultimately think we're approaching this through very different lenses, and we're talking past each other a bit too, but I do think we share some root concerns: I want the lives of men to be better; I want us to have our problems understood rather than ignored; I want us to have fulfillment in our relationships; I want us to be able to escape from economic disadvantage and underclass status.
I'm going to see myself out of the conversation here. This isn't an attempt to "last word" you or anything like that-- if you choose to respond I will definitely read what you have to say and consider it earnestly. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me and share your perspective.
No serious person would say otherwise but nobody has made any sort of argument for how the outputs of feminism provide any of this. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying we shouldn’t have gender equality, but taking away a privilege from one to equalize things is not making it better for the previously privileged class. I guess that’s what’s supposed to happen when you equalize things but saying that these things are going to make life better for men too is absurd. Also in a zeal to equalize (a great goal) it’s easy to swing too far the other way, as we can clearly see from the college admission ratios becoming inverted.
Why? It's true. All those things you list as problems - suicide, imprisonment, murder, education - become problems for men because society's expectations of men and women are different, and men internalise those expectations, sometimes to their own detriment.
To pick just one obvious example out of many possible examples: it's well "known" that men are inherently more violent than women. Women cry, men hit. That's the stereotypical view of women and men. When men internalise that stereotype, it causes them to reject any attempt to express or deal with their emotions, and causes them to resort to violence as a solution to emotional issues. Do I really need to spell out how that might lead to higher suicides, higher imprisonment, and higher murders? (I'm obviously simplifying some very complex topics, just to make a point.)
The patriarchy affects men just as much as it affects women, but in different ways. Deconstructing the patriarchy, and the stereotypical gender role expectations that result from it, can help men as well as women.
I think for some of what you outlined above, there is a legitimate argument to be made that gender inequality is the source of those issues in a manner which is in no way dismissive. Or, in other words, modern 'patriarchy' and its oppression of women is itself actively harmful men in a variety of circumstances. The notion that "male privilege" always confers benefits (though indeed it does incredibly benefit some) should be extinguished.
Personally, I would argue that every space like this (whether feminist, LGBTQ, or men's lib,) should promote gender equality and mutual respect. Additionally, most of the issues you've mentioned are a result of the patriarchy or gender inequality, so promoting gender equality directly impacts those issues and helps address them.
Curious, did you ever hang around /r/menslib? If so, did you feel like that was a safe space for men? I ask because one of their stances was that they are a pro-feminist community, and they very much promote gender equality and mutual respect.
I'm a woman, and I won't tell men how to discuss their own gender (part of mutual respect is to respect that we experience the world differently,) but I do know that /r/menslib is a beloved community of both men and women. And at its core, the pro-feminist stance of /r/menslib is what separates it from other "men's rights" communities which, stated generously, become ...distracted from truly discussing men's rights because they'd rather focus on women (such as MGTOW or the red pill.)
I mean no offense, but it seems to me like you (and others in this thread) are doing exactly that. And personally, this is part of the reason I have no desire to engage with r/menslib or other men's communities. I have no problem with feminism or the concept of intersectionality, but if I'm coming to a men's space it's because I want to actually explore men's issues, not throw the focus to other groups/communities that are hard done by (and I'm not saying that in a facetious way). Yet it seems to me there is a lot of pressure upon men's groups to place focus on others and the way they treat others instead of themselves, and at the same time the lack of self-consideration and self-care is one of the biggest problems facing men today (IMO).
That isn't to say I don't think communities can function however they want. r/menslib can function one way, and r/MGTOW can function their own way, and personally I have no interest in engaging with either (although I can obviously recognize one is/was obviously far more harmful than the other).
I think it's fair to say that promoting gender equality and mutual respect should have its place in a men's community but it's just one core value among others... and it always makes me think, what about people who don't necessarily value gender equality the same way? Feminist spaces are full of misandrists. I don't think it's healthy for them to be guiding the conversation, but those people need to go somewhere. Ban them from reasonable conversational spaces and they go off and form their own more radical groups and push forth more extreme values (the innumerable TERF groups as an example). The denizens of r/MGTOW and similar places don't come from nowhere, and I think the lack of any truly safe space for men to discuss men's issues is what leads to these groups coalescing.
No worries, I don't take offense. It is difficult to provide input about how I think gender-focused spaces should be generally inclusive of all genders, without immediately making a faux pas if the general consensus ends up being different. A risk I took by commenting.
It's possible I should have only left my opinion in the equivalent post about ~life.women. It's just that whenever I've participated in men's communities before, I've been able to have good conversations with everyone there, but I could step back, especially since I'm still getting familiar with what's acceptable here.
For what it's worth, I agree that feminist spaces can easily become misandrist when they don't prioritize mutual respect. That's why my opinion on all of this is really about how any space like this functions, not men's topics specifically.
As for how to handle banned populations that begin to gather in alternative, more extreme communities... That is certainly a complex issue that I have no idea how to address, and I think you're right that things like MGTOW come from such environments.
I think this forum should be about men, rather than for men exclusively. In this, your input is valuable here. This also aligns with the general Tildes ethos that groups are about the topic, not the members who inhabit it.
I don't think there's any need to step back and I don't mean to say that I think there's no room for women or women's input in men's circles. I think it is helpful, actually, and the same goes the other way around.
It's just a tough balance of providing your input as a woman without trying to shape the conversation. Or at least, that's how I feel when I comment in women's conversations. Leave no trace mentality.
Thanks, I feel like you've been really polite to me, and I don't feel unwelcomed or that you'd rather I not participate here. And I am hearing everything you're saying. I promise I am usually more of a listener in men's spaces, I think I just got a little too eager to discuss things on this site. (When I arrived here a few weeks ago I intended to limit myself to lurking more than I actually have!) It seems like this topic in particular might be a good thing to listen to more than participate, at least for a while. Or I can be more thoughtful about how I word my comments, when I do decide to participate.
I've definitely bowed out of responding to things in this particular post, because I feel like I've said enough. Just wanted to wrap up this exchange and thank you for giving polite feedback.
MGTOW... hmm...
Some years back, I learned about the "men going their own way" movement on Reddit, and discovered their original /r/MGTOW subreddit (back before it got banned).
I decided to be a bit cheeky, and do some research while also poking the bear. I made a post there about how I was also a "man going his own way" - single, independent, not relying on someone in a relationship, supporting myself - I ticked all the boxes in their description in their sidebar (and I was totally sincere about all of that, because I am that type of person). However, I also deliberately mentioned that I'm gay.
I got banned instantly.
That proved to me what I had suspected: that this was not a pro-men movement, it was an anti-women movement. And, along with their misogyny, they were also homophobic (the two traits often occur together).
I'm glad you've added your perspective as a gay person, because this is exactly what I was trying to explain about the importance of intersectionality and "promoting gender equality." Even when (really, especially when) the topic of discussion is centered around a certain gender. The main point is that any space that doesn't prioritize gender equality ends up devolving into either a terrifying or subtle cesspit of anger, homophobia, and misogyny. I've experienced it countless times as a woman, and I'm sure that most queer folks have experienced it even more often than I have.
And yet, I know that male-centric spaces can and do exist that are welcoming for everyone of any gender and any sexuality. The space only needs to be pro-feminist, trans-inclusive, and generally promote intersectionality and gender equality.
Ultimately, based on my experience of gendered spaces and spaces that center around men's issues - if they aren't taking into account how queer people and women feel, they aren't fully dissecting what it means to be a man. Even feminist spaces that don't prioritize intersectionality quickly turn into transphobic TERF territory - this isn't a bad behavior that is exclusive to straight cis men. And when men's spaces do genuinely take intersectionality into account, it tends to be very productive and beneficial for everyone.
When you're a woman and/or queer - promoting gender equality and mutual respect is a given. Personally, I've never considered those things as being optional.
I agree that this thread hasn't felt great, as a woman and as someone who cares about queer people, intersectionality, feminism, and men's issues. (For anyone else wondering, it's entirely possible to care about all of those things at the same time, and I encourage all of us to prioritize and care about all of those things.)
I'm usually not an optimistic person, but so far I'm choosing to assume good will when conversing with people here. In the past few weeks here I've sometimes been unsure of people's intentions when I get into a conversation with them (especially since many people are just as new as I am,) but whenever I asked for clarification, they usually gave it willingly and politely, and seemed to listen to what I had to say, even if we didn't totally see eye to eye. I hope there's more of that in the future.
But, despite my optimism, I do want to echo your concerns and state that any male space that feels alienating or hostile to gay men is surely failing in its goal to promote men's issues and men's perspectives.
Isn't that precisely what you're doing? Reading through this thread, the feeling I get is a committee of people who may or may not be men squabbling over the purpose and direction of a men-specific forum. Perhaps we're missing the point, just a little bit?
Have you seen any toxic behavior in ~life.men so far? The problems you're hoping to address, have they manifested here? Maybe instead of trying to replicate /r/menslib, we can give ~life.men a chance to develop its own identity, eh?
Well, to be honest, I genuinely did not expect that the concept of "promoting gender equality and mutual respect" would be controversial. But I wouldn't say there's toxic behavior - most of my comments in this thread seem to have been well received or respected, including by men. I really haven't seen any toxicity on this site, which is part of the reason I have felt comfortable engaging in discussions like this and expressing my opinion. Maybe that was a bit naive.
I don't think that's what people are reacting to. That statement and the sentiment behind it certainly aren't what's raising my hackles.
But the more I see you comment here, the more bad vibes I get. You're trying to shape a space that isn't about you. That seems a bit presumptuous. It would be like me, a man, stepping into ~life.women and telling people there what to discuss and how to discuss it. That's not my space. It's not about me. I can observe and even participate occasionally, but I'm not a woman, so I don't get to dictate the content or tone of discussion there.
You say in another comment here that:
I get the feeling you want us to do the same here in ~life.men. But... could we not? Could we just discuss things that affect men, among men? Could this just be a Men's Shed?
As other people have pointed out, not all men's discussions have to be about women (just as not all women's discussions should be about men).
I really apologize for the bad vibes I've created or contributed to in this thread. Admittedly, I came away from the whole discussion feeling awful about how it transpired. I definitely would have worded my initial comment more carefully, or not contributed at all, if I had "read the room" more accurately.
You brought up some great points that I won't respond to here, but I have considered them, and will keep them in mind if I engage in discussions about this topic in the future.
I'mma be real, I really don't appreciate your wording here. It paints me as an enemy to your cause, and I most certainly am not. At no point have I said anything against gender equality or mutual respect. Why is it your assumption that I'm arguing against treating people with respect? Why can't I have a valid reason for disagreeing with you?
The issue I take is that you haven't given it a chance to reach that point naturally. You say you won't tell men how to discuss our gender, yet here you are 'getting ahead of' an issue that does not presently exist. Do you have no faith in us to behave ourselves? Do you see me in ~life.women cautioning against intolerance and hate? I have no reason to assume ~life.women would default to intolerance and hate, so I feel no need to nip it in the bud.
You've shared your opinion, here's mine: I feel like I'm being presumed guilty. Even in this exchange you've defensively cast me as the bad guy rather than exploring my argument. I want to feel comfortable discussing men's issues here. You do not make me feel comfortable; you make me feel watched.
I'm not OP, but I think you've misread @catahoula_leopard. That bit was a straightforward response to your question on whether there's been any toxic behavior in this thread as a generalized statement and not directed at you specifically.
Many "men's spaces" on the internet have either started rotten or become cesspools. It's not an outrageous concern if we open our doors on Tildes for gender forums. I can list off probably more than half dozen subreddits on reddit alone which fit this bill while I can only think of a handful of female-centric subs which have similar toxicity of any appreciable userbase.
The rest of your response is escalated and feels personal, but I'll chalk that up to what I think is a misunderstanding.
I'm to be persecuted for the actions of others? That's not exactly a welcoming stance.
You're right, it is personal. I personally do not enjoy it when people assume that I am a piece of shit. Now you're here defending that assumption on the basis that "other men have been shitty in other places in the past." I find that personally insulting.
I'm not trying to get into a big fight here, but you didn't address what I honestly think was a misreading of a comment. We'd have to wait for OP to come clarify, but I'm a little at a loss for why the above is so riling and why you consider it so personal.
Let me outline:
You asked is this thread has any examples of toxic behavior.
OP responded with (a) they think it's surprising that discussion of gender equality isn't welcome here by some users1 and (b) no, there is no toxic behavior and that the site overall is respectful.
Nothing in what they said was targeted at you specifically. Where am I going wrong?
Let me excise gender and sex from this discussion and make an analogy: If we were discussing how to make a good internet forum (like say Tildes), is it not prudent to bring up what led other internet forums down the gutter? Especially if it's a reoccurring problem? Maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but that's my take at least.
1Which is unambiguously true -- there are comments here explicitly saying that topic should be discussed elsewhere and doesn't belong here.
No, I did not. I asked if ~life.men has displayed toxic behavior.
Look, I'm really not interested in all the reasons you think I'm being unreasonable if you won't even do your due diligence of quoting me accurately. I'm not particularly interested in what you think @catahoula_leopard meant, either. To be frank, I wasn't talking to you and you seem strangely motivated to prove me wrong. This is not the only place you've expressed disagreement with me, and in both cases you attacked arguments that I did not make.
I don't believe you are engaging with me in good faith.
Pardon, I'm just cruising new comments. Take care then.
And you as well.
I think what you are describing fits better on a tag as menslib, Tildes being multicultural should focus on a broad identity of men outside American identity.
Interesting, I wasn't aware that menslib or the ideas behind it are exclusive to American culture, (besides the general tendency for reddit to skew towards the US, demographically.) I admit I could be wrong, since I am American.
Even if you are correct in that, I believe my point still stands when applied to any gender-related topic - taking intersectionality into account is rarely a waste of time.
I would agree on mutual respect.
I appreciate your acknowledgement of where we found common ground. And I'm sure your point about Americentrism has truth to it.
I never found that sub, but someone else mentioned it as well so I checked it out, looks like a decent place, and I found this:
They express what I was trying to say a lot better than I could.
I just don't want like stuff being thrown in people's faces or similar.
I think you would've appreciated menslib, based on your comments.
I feel like we're not totally agreeing on some concepts here, but I do like your comments in this thread, and I think we have the same general idea and good will towards the topic.
In particular, I noticed one of your comments about how twox would often come off as being misandrist. Even as a woman, I felt that way when visiting that sub, and eventually unsubscribed about halfway through my 12 or so years on reddit. It was an insufferable space in many ways, probably because it was so large, but I have to think it could've been moderated or shaped more effectively. I just can't tolerate any women's space that promotes male body shaming or complete invalidation of the male experience.
All I want is for any women's space or men's space to be relatively respectful and welcoming of all of our gendered experiences. It's not a simple thing, to be sure. But it can be done.
I think this idea is why the some parts of the thread are kind of going around in circles.
It's not reasonable to expect that men always do want to talk about gender politics. Frankly, it gets exhausting sometimes.
Sometimes a guy just is underemployed, his rent has gone up, his partner is stressed out, the sex has stopped, and he feels like the weight of the world is on his shoulders and just wants to vent.
Yeah, maybe it's true that it shouldn't have to be on his shoulders and masculinity is a social construct.
Maybe it's also true that if the patriarchy were dismantled, his partner would be making more money and his problems would be less.
Sometimes though, hearing that doesn't help that man in that moment at all. Every conversation shouldn't be that, is what I think I am seeing in some posts, and I am inclined to agree.
Most people are not activists, or trying to save the world.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the talking points, and have learned a lot from r/menslib, which I have been subscribed to for a long time.
Realistically though, it's not really fair to expect everybody who identifies as a man to be looking at every post as an opportunity to discuss a movement, or the big picture.
Sometimes people just need to chat, and to know that wherever they are coming from is OK.
If more men had that, less men would find what they think they are looking for in the toxic spaces they have ended up.
A Men's Shed, in other words. ;)
Wow! That is so cool that they have that initiative in Australia.
Meanwhile over here in the land of freedom, we are doing the opposite, and teaching boys young that they will not be having their own space.
That's different. I don't believe that Scouts or Guides should be gender-specific. In Australia, we've had Girl Scouts starting 50 years ago, with full inclusion achieve in 1988. (source)
The only reason we need Men's Sheds is to undo the damage done to men by patriarchal attitudes and toxic masculinity. If we did things properly in the first place, we wouldn't need organisations like Men's Sheds, because men wouldn't be as emotionally crippled as they are. They would already know how to be open about their feelings. Also, maybe there would be less misogyny and homophobia in the world. But we can't go back and undo what was done. We can only try to do better in future, and try to repair the damage that has already been done.
True, it is different. It's not even that I feel strongly about it either way, because I could probably take either side in that debate and come up with good points.
More just that I was surprised to see kind of opposite things happening in the two places.
What gets me is that there are still girl scouts, which continues to be exclusive to girls. And over here the girls scouts are beloved every spring, when they do the cookie sale.
So now this is what young boys see. Girls with their own club and everybody fawning over them, and they get only a co-ed club.
It doesn't seem like a good start, and then they are going to grow up and find that there are even more exclusive clubs for women and all kinds of other people, everybody except them.
If somebody suggested to start something similar to a men's shed around here, they would be crucified.
It sounds like a small thing, and it is, but little things add up, and then these guys try to find a tribe somewhere and end up on redpill or MGTOW or somewhere.
I realize it sounds whiny, especially in text form, but it's front of mind because I had to field the question from my son last year, why are there girls in boy scouts and not boys in girl scouts. Of course I think I gave him a decent message back, but parents always think they are doing that.
Fair enough, and I agree with your additional ideas. My original thinking on that point was that having a space for men shouldn't be divisive or devolve into the "nice guy" mentality. Rather, being open, mindful, and inclusive by you seeking to understand each other as humans. In this case men.
I completely agree with this then.
Upholding others' rights is beneficial to men's rights.
Also, anytime a group of men does not make a strong point to explicitly respect and support the welfare of other groups, bad things tend to happen. Historically, we have reasons to be very forceful about that.
I'm curious as to how you can feel that
aren't innately tied to issues of mutual respect and gender equality
Honestly, the very concept of masculinity frustrates me. Femininity as well, though to a much lesser extent because I am a man who doesn't get much social pressure to be more feminine. The reason why is rather simple: I don't think that the concept should have any bearing on a person's construction of their idea of existential self.
I've heard many comments about learning to be a good son, father, husband, etc., but none of those roles require masculinity. "Son" is just a gendered version of "child", "father" of "parent", "husband" of "spouse", etc.; none of them explicitly require you to be masculine in any way, and for the most part those roles can be substituted with a female gendered role with no negative effects. And while there are some masculine traits that one are socially expected to carry, there are two things that undermine them. Number one is that those expectations are optional for one to fulfill - you can always reject them, though there may be consequences. The second thing is that generally speaking the ones that matter the most - enough that they should almost be an entirely different category - is the virtues, the positive things that help the individual and the group they belong in. And those things are universally appreciated regardless of your gender.
With all of that being said, masculinity is a concept embedded in our culture and in our psyches, so rather than promoting masculinity, I'd rather have this topic stick to things like
men's health andhelping people who are hindered by masculine ideals. Perhaps also men's fashion (though I'm fairly against the fashion industry in general, so a focus on sturdy clothes that can last a long time would be appreciated).Edit: I was reading through the comments on the similar thread in ~life.women and read the comment about not putting health things in there to avoid alienating intersex and trans people. Upon reflection, I think we should do that too; leave health topics to ~health.
I agree in a vacuum that there is a silliness and arbitrariness in assigning traits to gender roles. "Being a good parent" can easily fit into being either "fatherly" or "motherly." But...
This is the catch: We're alive in a culture which does define gender roles strongly. While acknowledging that there is no fundamental manliness to say "strength," certain kinds of strength are very emotionally tied to it. Therefore, rather than eradicating it, I think the much more fruitful program is engendering positive and inclusive forms of gender. Many people do place great importance and receive comfort from their masculine or feminine traits (of either gender and sex). Thus, in my opinion, you should to some extent think about it as a cultural identity in the same way people take great comfort in their national identity, their hobbies, their skills, and other traits which are pure inventions of humans and are just as lacking in a fundamental nature.
I just wanna make a quick shout out about how taking my kids out isn't "Dad is babysitting." Dad is parenting.
So many folks, especially older folks, seem to mean well, but its incredibly disparaging as a parent, and also propagates this weird idea that Dad's shouldn't be expected to handle kids full time.
I don't hear this as often recently as I used to (probably because people close to me have already gotten an earful from me and know my thoughts about the phrasing), but it grinds my gears so much whenever I do. I think you're right that it's mostly older folks that think and speak like this.
Is there any actual advantage to using words like "manly," "masculine," "feminine," "girly," instead of words that more accurately describe what a person is referring to and don't assume certain roles, traits, behaviors for each gender, or reinforce gender stereotypes (as these of course can be very different between cultures or individual people?) "Physically strong," "caring," "emotionally open," "dependable," "stoic." These words and phrases and combinations of these words and phrases of course do not apply solely to any particular gender. So I'm wondering what the utility of the words really are (aside from a more meta conversation like how people are using them here to talk about how people have historically thought about masculinity/femininity in different cultures.)
All of these words can and often are used to enact complex alignments, contrasts, and oppositions by those, in every spectrum of identity, who feel a need to define their own relationship with gender in a way that is particularly meaningful to them. What they mean is complex, multiple, local, and personal.
Removing such terms would reduce gender expressivity.
We don't need to degender language, but rather to multigender it. People wanna use language to help self-define, and current language is clearly not enough.
And sometimes we need "wrong" terms just so we are able to express our opposition to whatever they represent.
Diminishing the expressivity of languages does not help anyone.
As a man for whom overt masculinity was largely denied by a narcissistic single mother that explicitly wished I was feminine and or homosexual, a mother that oppressed my expressions of masculinity and humiliated me at every step as if I was an appendage of her trauma, the concept of masculinity is for sure an important and defining aspect of my identity, something I created myself in a hostile environment. It is definitely meaningful to me, and removing it from language would be a continuation of the oppression I endured as a child.
There is a tribe of 'man' (and one of 'woman')—somewhat loose and nebulous, but very clearly manifest, nevertheless—for better or worse; it is characterised—how? I am not really sure, having generally felt more oppression than kinship from both, and hence being somewhat disinterested, but the tribes clearly exist, on account of many people's realised experience of belonging to one or the other. So, you may think of 'masculine' as shorthand for 'characteristic of identification with the tribe of man'.
To deny that 'masculine' is a useful designator is to deny that 'man' is a useful designator. Which may be a valid position to take, but you have to be aware that you are taking it (and it seems to me that you do not take it, since you implicitly affirm the notion that there exists 'particular gender').
(To sharpen the 'you may think of' point: that is not a complete characterisation of 'masculine', because of course the word is tied up with all sorts of other connotations. But, since you are concerned with how we should discourse, or what we would gain by discoursing in some way rather than another, you may think of that as an aspirational definition. In just the same fashion as 'feminism' does not really per se refer to equality of sex, but yet does in some idealised, aspirational sense.)
Big enough to be it's own thread, or several. You should make a post for a larger discussion.
Here are some random thoughts of mine. This just a bit of a brain-dump. And some of them are just reiterating points I made when we were discussing whether to create a ~women and/or ~men group last week.
I like that there's a ~life.men to complement ~life.women. As I said in that discussion, it demonstrates that men aren't the default demographic on Tildes by not handing over ~life to men by default, while women get relegated to ~life.women.
I tend to avoid men-only spaces on the internet. As I said in that discussion, they often end up being about relations with women - and, as a gay man, that alienates me.
I would like this group to be about men, not necessarily for men. As I said in that discussion, I like the philosophy stated in one subreddit I know: "Allies and friends are also welcome here, but the focus of this group is men and their issues, concerns, and thoughts."
I agree with the point made by some women in that discussion thread, and reiterated here, that health-related topics (biological and medical) should be posted in ~health, rather than being separated into gendered silos.
For one thing, all humans have bodies, and most of our health issues are non-gendered.
For another thing, separating medical health issues into "mens" and "womens" can be alienating for transgender people. A trans woman shouldn't have to come to ~life.men if she wants to discuss testicular cancer, and a trans man shouldn't have to go to ~life.women if he wants to discuss ovarian cancer. (In that context, I've been hearing a radio ad recently that starts "If you're a person with a cervix... [go get tested for cervical cancer]" which I think is a great approach.)
Some of the points you've listed in your post aren't relevant to me as a gay man. Or, if they are relevant, the context is different.
Just for starters: "The changing roles and responsibilities of men in personal and professional life."
Gay men don't have roles in their personal life! (Except when some idiot asks "So, who's the man and who's the woman in the relationship?" relevant joke ) We're both men, so we don't have any preconceptions about who's going to do the cleaning, who's going to do the gardening, who's going to earn our daily bread, and who's going to bake our daily bread.
And, gay men's role in the professional world is often to do the "women's" work: we're overrepresented in female-dominated occupations like flight attendants, hairdressers, nurses, actors.
Like I said, I'll see how this group develops, before I decide whether to unsubscribe. (I already unsubbed from ~life.women.)
Just popping in to add that that's one of the reasons behind the stance I have on masculinity which I posted earlier in this topic. Another one would be that I hate it that straight men feel pressured to fit into that mold. It's a kind of pressure that nobody should need to deal with. It's one thing to fill a role, but it's another thing entirely to become that role.
I am not sure if men need a dedicated space, but I'm not sure that anyone needs a dedicated space. I can see lots of advantages to having a place for people in general to discuss the masculine perspective and plight, for all the same reasons other demographics can benefit from such a forum.
I'm someone who was never considered classically masculine in my youth, and was teased a lot for my more "feminine" qualities (listening, empathy, nonviolence). Now in my middle age, I'm considered quite masculine because I still have those traits and don't give a fuck what others think. I guess that's part of the stoicism cliché. Tropes of masculinity will be always evolving, but men do have a unique set of challenges, if only due to our biology (eg prostate cancer) and I think it's nice to have a support network ready to receive questions and give advice to those who ask. The group can also give other genders a place to ask questions of folks who identify as male in a safe but public way, which is nice.
Right now I'm discovering how to be a good father and husband. Like a lot of kids from the 80s, I didn't have any good male role models through most of my childhood, and I'm having to figure it out for myself. If there were older fellas here who could help me with the occasionally parenting or husbanding question, I know I'd appreciate it. Or just someone to listen to me complain about working 60+ hours per week for money I don't get to spend :/
Anyway, those are my bits. I agree with most other posters that such a place could be toxic if not moderated or if it were populated by bad actors, but atm tildes isn't a place where I'm worried about that.
Yeah the problem with groups like these is they end up skewing your perception of reality more negatively generally and you run the risk of being absorbed into an echo chamber.
I saw a bunch of people talking about the 2x sub, and I'm sure there was good discussion there but as a man when I looked at it, I found a lot of stuff that seemed to me bordered on misandry.
Maybe that'll be controversial and I'll admit I only briefly checked out the sub a few times, so I'll give a more extreme example: FDS (Female Dating Strategy) is one of the most toxic places I've ever seen outside of twitter. It is basically an incel sub masquerading as an advice sub and it is very easy to see that.
I can't think of a general just men space on reddit to compare to, but like the cringy red pill, incel, or mgtow stuff goes exactly the same way, dehumanizing women, enforcing hyper-masculinity.
If we have a space for gendered discussion, we need to make sure it doesn't just devolve into a single doomer us-vs-them viewpoint gendered war.
There are legitimate reasons to have specific sections for men and women's issues, men and women tend to react or cope with things differently, and things helpful to one might not work or even be detrimental for the other.
It doesn't border on misandry, there's plenty of posts on 2x that are blatantly misandrist. I think a lot of us just accept it for what it is. I've always thought personally that, well, if incel subreddits and MGTOW are going to exist, women are going to have their equivalent. But then that isn't really a fair comparison, because FDS is more the equivalent, and 2x is less blatantly problematic but also far more mainstream which IMO actually makes it a bigger problem in the end because of the bigger reach/impact... and the perception that its conversations are more mainstream and acceptable, while still often being hateful and hurtful, leads people to believe that kind of talk is acceptable -- whereas while places like r/incel absolutely did radicalize some men, I also feel like many who read those kinds of posts have a "this is what THEY don't WANT you to see" mentality, which feeds into the whole 'red pill' alternate-perception-of-reality-mentality.
Spaces like this existed even on reddit. r/menslib was a fantastic space that I hope ~life.men emulates. There were a lot of toxic subreddits for men's issues, but that subreddit proves it's possible to make something better.
Yeah it looks like a decent place.
too bad it took until after the mass exodus to find it.
I agree with all you said, and while I haven't looked carefully through any of the similar places at reddit, when I did wander into them I also got a sense of toxicity and hatred that I'd be sad to see here.
I'd say that this type of question would be most interesting to me. I always find it fascinating to see how similar or different my experiences are from other people. And I really prefer it be more in-depth and free-form then a poll; so much nuance gets lost in multiple choice questions. It really helps me interrogate assumptions that I probably would never notice without prompting. As to why I think ~life.men in particular could benefit from these kinds of discussion, I believe that Male being the "default" gender actually masks a lot of the nuances of each individual man's experiences. It is an archetypal masculinity that is the default assumption, not actual men.
"Supporting men, and men's concerns."
The group needs to have an intention, purpose and direction. It should be positive.
There does need to be a theme, otherwise there's no point to having a group. It has to be some purposeful intention that feeds the direction of conversation.
It doesn't have to be narrow or exclusionary, but focused on men's issues, or life, or questions, things like that.
I also think that men's concerns are everyone's concerns, and supporting men includes supporting everyone. But if this group were ~life.everyone then ~life.men would have no point at all.
So I propose having a group direction and overall theme of men and men's issues, not being exclusionary, but intended towards the topic in order to fuel discussion.
This post raised about fifteen different wide-ranging topics that could all be sprawling threads of their own.
Quick note: Most people won't see your edit. People who've already commented here will assume that the topic hasn't changed since the last time they were here. Only new people seeing this topic for the first time will read the whole text, including your edit.
You might need to post a new topic, to give that added material more visibility.
(Or... now that I think about it... maybe this new comment of mine, drawing people's attention to the existence of the added material, might be enough to do the trick. I don't know. But I still believe that a new topic would be a better approach, if you want to maximise visibility.)
Thank you for the feedback. I want to respect community norms here on Tildes as I feel it out. I'll add a new post. I appreciate the advice!
Just to clarify: I'm not sharing a community norm. There is no "norm" here regarding whether to edit a topic to add information or make a new topic for that information.
I'm merely pointing out a practical issue: less people will see your information in an edit to an existing topic than in a new topic.
Fair enough. I think we are all creating norms here, and I took your practical advice. I'm sure others will let me know what they think. In any case, I hope you have a wonderful week. I'm drinking coffee and catching up on Tildes before getting into work.
An alternative idea is to put your added thoughts as a top-level comment instead of an edit. This resurrects the post to the frontpage, the new comment shows up as a little (1 new comment) tag, but otherwise doesn't further clutter the forum. Anybody interested will see there's something new.
Thank you, I appreciate you helping yo navigate Tildes better!