I can't help but wonder how it would go over if I, as a man, gave a treatise on what femininity should look like in women. Somehow not good, I would expect, and rightfully so.
I can't help but wonder how it would go over if I, as a man, gave a treatise on what femininity should look like in women. Somehow not good, I would expect, and rightfully so.
We here on Tildes have rejected the idea that the only people who post in ~life.men should be men and the only people who post in ~life.women should be women. By extension, we shouldn't reject out...
We here on Tildes have rejected the idea that the only people who post in ~life.men should be men and the only people who post in ~life.women should be women. By extension, we shouldn't reject out of hand observations by people who aren't the "right gender" to be commenting on them. Instead, we should evaluate them based on their arguments, and whether you agree with this video or not, it's not a misandrist screed.
It is important to note that allowing all to contribute to a category does not prevent such contributions from being criticized for misconceptions or a perceived lack of legitimacy. Another...
It is important to note that allowing all to contribute to a category does not prevent such contributions from being criticized for misconceptions or a perceived lack of legitimacy.
Another distinction to make, here, is that @PaiMei did not directly criticize another Tildes user, but rather the author of the content another user posted.
What I said was not intended to shut down criticism or discussion. However, I don't think it's constructive to dismiss the video out of hand or compare it to "a treatise on what femininity should...
What I said was not intended to shut down criticism or discussion. However, I don't think it's constructive to dismiss the video out of hand or compare it to "a treatise on what femininity should look like," which isn't a good description of it anyway.
I think the point is that boys don't need to hear from women what it means to be a man. Boys and young men need strong male role models talking about their views on masculinity, what it means to...
I think the point is that boys don't need to hear from women what it means to be a man. Boys and young men need strong male role models talking about their views on masculinity, what it means to be good man, and how men can be a positive view on the world.
I think this is a valid point because the person delivering the message changes how the message is heard, perceived, accepted, etc. If you have never been in my shoes (because you're not a man), you literally have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to being a man. Sure, you can share your opinion but also, I'll share my opinion that you should keep your opinion to yourself. Much the same as if I (a white man) tried to share my ideas how an African American could be a better leader for african americans.
I see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure everyone on Tildes is an adult. That's not to say we're entirely past the point of needing role models, but it's not the same situation since this is a...
I see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure everyone on Tildes is an adult. That's not to say we're entirely past the point of needing role models, but it's not the same situation since this is a video about masculinity as a concept and how it's propagated in pop culture. It's not meant to be taken as advice or a policy prescription, but rather observing a trend and how various people, including several men, view it. If people who supposedly practice positive masculinity aren't really walking the walk, there should be discussions of that by everyone who's affected, including how to improve the movement for positive masculinity rather than ditching it as a concept.
In addition, while I agree with what you're saying that people who don't share an identity should be respectful of those who are, I think there are nuances with how the video analyzes masculinity. For one example from the video, when discussing how some men who publicly state how progressive they are but repeat misogynistic ideas in private, it makes sense for women who have experience dating them to weigh in. I get that it can seem intrusive for non-men to be elevated in men's spaces, but I think that the discussions on here leaned towards having ~life.men as a group about men and men's issues but not necessarily limited to men. This fits with how other groups such as ~lgbt allow everyone to contribute, and I also believe that Tildes aspires to a site culture that isn't so acrimonious where people who don't fit the categories stated can still interact and respectfully participate in spaces like that. Even though there are certainly places both on and off the internet that are more restrictive, I don't think we should replicate that mindset here even though it's not inherently bad in all cases.
Anyway, I just got rambly and felt like sharing my thoughts on the matter as a man. Hopefully it didn't come across as a lecture instead.
I agree, but I personally didn't see any issues with her tone in this video. The only part that could be problematic was when she lightly mocked the "deep masculinity" espoused by people like...
I agree, but I personally didn't see any issues with her tone in this video. The only part that could be problematic was when she lightly mocked the "deep masculinity" espoused by people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, and I can see how that could be taken as a hit against men's self-expression in other contexts. However, it was limited to that group, and they've also been roundly criticized by people who promote healthy masculinity. I get that people may feel defensive about this, as well as generally wanting to promote stuff by men in a group for men's topics. However, I'm frustrated by the knee-jerk reaction of judging it like it's some kind of lecture, since it didn't seem preachy or condescending to me at all.
There are a lot of interesting subtopics that comprise the overarching topic of "men" (or "women"), and I'm in complete agreement that all should be welcome in both spaces. We are inextricably...
There are a lot of interesting subtopics that comprise the overarching topic of "men" (or "women"), and I'm in complete agreement that all should be welcome in both spaces. We are inextricably interwoven and thus should all have our say on those various subtopics. For example, if there's a post on dating, I would think the opinion of both sexes on the thread would be extremely valuable. Or workplace norms, fitness... there are tons.
But this particular post is going right to the heart of "what should masculinity be?" What is it to be "a man"? I believe that is a question that is best answered by men. I'll go back to my original question, for it was not entirely rhetorical. How would it be perceived if I went into a women's group and gave them a 20-minute lecture (at times a bit condescending/mocking, as was this video) on what "true femininity" should be? That wouldn't come off as the least bit inappropriate or overbearing? I'd feel extremely "dickish" in that scenario, for lack of a better term.
I think you're 100% right that a man trying to talk to a woman's group about what femininity means would be viciously attacked, shouted down, forced out of the room, etc. I'm also not a trans...
I think you're 100% right that a man trying to talk to a woman's group about what femininity means would be viciously attacked, shouted down, forced out of the room, etc.
I'm also not a trans person, what value could I possibly add to a discussion about what it means to be trans?
/r/menslib had the same problem, every post was "what's wrong with men" or "what's wrong with me for being a man" and always pointed towards women as leading by example. All the conversations...
Exemplary
/r/menslib had the same problem, every post was "what's wrong with men" or "what's wrong with me for being a man" and always pointed towards women as leading by example.
All the conversations shunned masculine identity. Everything was defined as toxic or patriarchical, or somehow stunted, ignorant or immature.
Masculinity was framed as being defined purely by negative traits, and unnecessary. Everything about men was either something that needed changing, or something harmful.
Men's conversations continue to be defined this way - if you're a man, it's your responsibility to change yourself, because of your harmful traits, because of toxic masculinity, because of the patriarchy, because of everything women have suffered at the hands of men. Because of all the things that are wrong with men.
Men's conversations continue to be defined in terms of hurting women and hurting society.
Those conversations aren't about self improvement, responsibility, accountability, integrity or any positive traits whatsoever.
I think this group should have a positive leading purpose instead.
I have to admit, I only skimmed the video and listened to a few parts, but I was also confused what her proposal was, other than removing a safe and reasonable landing for young men who need some...
I have to admit, I only skimmed the video and listened to a few parts, but I was also confused what her proposal was, other than removing a safe and reasonable landing for young men who need some type of solid ground to plant their feet.
I think that many of us, who would consider ourselves progressive, can get lost in the pursuit of "Advancing" our agenda without realizing that it takes time and there needs to be pit stops on the way. Ok, she's saying she doesn't think identity should be framed in "Manhood" because it's still gendered...? I don't know that I agree with that issue, even though it's complicated for those who are gender fluid, binary, or transitioned, but I understand the argument. But she doesn't seem to leave space for the fact that within recent memory, every man was taking notes from the same "Manhood" playbook and we've moved considerably further away from that singular model. Give us a little bit of a break to catch our breath, then let's keep progressing.
I feel like this is the same issue we see play out in allyship, where someone tries to ally to their best ability and it is rejected because they don't do it perfectly. Let's make some space for men who have moved from Toxic masculinity to positive masculinity and take that as a win, not immediately attack them for not running the entire race all at once.
She explicitly acknowledges this, directly contrasting her own discussion with something more 'pragmatic'. Is there not room for things which aren't concrete proposals for how to incrementally...
She explicitly acknowledges this, directly contrasting her own discussion with something more 'pragmatic'. Is there not room for things which aren't concrete proposals for how to incrementally make the world better? Such things are very valuable, to be sure, but it's absurd to expect that everything be one.
This is where a lot of these critiques fall short for me. If being a man is associated with negative traits that are not present (or not as present) in non-men, then being good for a man...
This is where a lot of these critiques fall short for me. If being a man is associated with negative traits that are not present (or not as present) in non-men, then being good for a man necessitates acting in a way that redirects or diminishes those negative aspects that are primarily exhibited in men. This cuts both ways, though. It makes sense that there are also positive aspects of manhood that can be emphasized, for the betterment of everyone. That’s more “being good at being a man” than “being good.” Those, to me, seem to be the two sides of being a “good man” that people invoke.
There’s a huge caveat here that not being “good at being a man” is not something that deserves shaming. It is important not to cut anyone down for not being good at “being a man.” That said, the video’s idea that men cut each other down doesn’t seem to be on point. Most spaces, in particular all-male spaces, that I’ve been in have had way more camaraderie and pulling other men up than they do pushing people down who don’t look like Rocky. That part really didn’t track for me.
Editing to comment that I thought there were some good points in the video and that I appreciated her focus that being good overall is a good target. The rest feels like details and approaches on the broader goal that most people seem to share.
Being a good person is the point. Before worrying about fitting in some mold called "man", fit into the "human" role. Both are made up, but being a human is both older, has a bigger scope, and...
Advice like telling them to be a good person is completely missing the point and does not help young men.
Being a good person is the point. Before worrying about fitting in some mold called "man", fit into the "human" role. Both are made up, but being a human is both older, has a bigger scope, and inherently leads to self improvement by acknowledging yourself as a person, with needs, feelings, and this weird thing called consciousness.
"Being a man" should be a consequence of understanding yourself. It's therefore specific to you, which is why trying to fit into the predefined role feels conflicting. It's like religion: there's some basic truth there that pulls you in, but trying a "one size fits all" approach is extremely misguided.
I find your response to be riddled with many contradictions. Here I feel you have an aversion towards what humans made. It seems like you are saying it lacks real truth and purpose. Thus, why...
I find your response to be riddled with many contradictions.
Before worrying about fitting in some mold called "man", fit into the "human" role. Both are made up,
Here I feel you have an aversion towards what humans made. It seems like you are saying it lacks real truth and purpose. Thus, why should we fit in these roles at all?
being a human is both older, has a bigger scope, and inherently leads to self improvement by acknowledging yourself as a person, with needs, feelings, and this weird thing called consciousness
Here it looks like you answer my previous question. However, if older is the goal, we can just be more hurtful to people around us or have inequitable systems of organization, just because we've had this modus operandi for a long time anyway. Additionally this is just an assertion. Why does being human predate being a man?
"Being a man" should be a consequence of understanding yourself. It's therefore specific to you, which is why trying to fit into the predefined role feels conflicting.
Again there are a lot of assertions here. Maybe it feels conflicting because there is new societal pressure that puts you in conflict with who you really are. Namely, the position you're making here and that assertion that the role doesn't really exist, it's a choice and you're supposed to make the right one, is what is creating the conflict in the first place.
Disclaimer: I'm in complete opposition with your last sentence. I feel that, regarding your implicit definitions of roles, good, bad, consciousness and our nature, religion is what provides us with the only way of reconciliation with them, access via truth and personal happiness and purpose fulfillment.
Oh boy, I have watched the video. Lots of good points. Most of them, really. I don't like the notion of "why be good men and not good people?" because it feels like a form of oppression. Would you...
Exemplary
Oh boy, I have watched the video. Lots of good points. Most of them, really. I don't like the notion of "why be good men and not good people?" because it feels like a form of oppression. Would you say that to a trans man?
The reason why it is important for me to be a man is the same reason why it is important for others to be a woman or whatever else they choose: because I want it to be the case. Gender is performative, and I choose to perform my own version of masculinity. That's all.
Everyone needs role models, and it is good when the role models we choose embody positive ideals. Yes, you can problematize it further, sure. But why?
It's turtles all way the way down, everything can be problematized to infinity in a recursive frenzy. Anything is bad if you look at it hard enough. I won't say it's wrong, but boy it is tiring. Young people sure have a lot of energy.
Just take the shortcut to gender performativity and you're pretty much done. Read Gender Trouble. No further problematization required.
For now, forgive me for cherishing the fact that some young men are looking for models of behavior which are progressive and good. Seems like a good idea.
I agree completely with this. To this end, let me point out two YT videos on the topic I found well-argued and thoughtful about this: The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander - It's a shame the...
I agree completely with this. To this end, let me point out two YT videos on the topic I found well-argued and thoughtful about this:
The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander - It's a shame the author (JKR, not the YouTuber lol) has become a bigot and that the movies went really downhill, but at least in the first movie, there's a real boon I think to see an earnest, but unorthodox, take on the male Hollywood hero.
Don't be like Jack - This is a video very different from JJ's usual content, but he's speaking from the heart here about how a lack of identifiable role models for young people (which connects to the performative aspect you brought up) is so incredibly destructive. It's not a video about gender per se, but I think touches on some of the same issues.
I was wondering when/if JJ would show up, here. In a somewhat similar vein, one of JJ's older videos "Male Insecurity and Male Exploitation" is quite good and relevent to the wider set of...
I was wondering when/if JJ would show up, here. In a somewhat similar vein, one of JJ's older videos "Male Insecurity and Male Exploitation" is quite good and relevent to the wider set of discussions that have been happening here.
Echoing one thing he mentioned is that a lot of the discussion of mens' issues tends to concern their relationship with women (individually or in aggregate). This obviously makes sense, but I think it often overshadows the equally important relationship men have with other each, and (possibly even more important than either of the previous) mens' relationships with themselves and their own brains.
We've seen some of the second with discussions of Tate and Peterson, but much of that seems to stem more from them being misogynistic than from how they (more so Tate than Peterson) seem to pit men against each other.
Soo, I'm a man and generally think I followed her advice of not worrying about it. I've also taken a gender studies class and toxic masculinity was addressed but framed differently. Mainly as an...
Exemplary
Soo, I'm a man and generally think I followed her advice of not worrying about it. I've also taken a gender studies class and toxic masculinity was addressed but framed differently. Mainly as an identity that isn't working for the person or society. That type of masculinity has made a ton of progress.
The Andrew Tate and guiding young men seems like it might be a separate issue. The things advocated their seem more cult like and aren't just giving people a singular identity but an entire world view. In that case I'm not really sure male role models are the solution. To me that's kind of like saying "We want the right people to exploit young people's insecurities and confusion". When young men don't really need to be "men", they just need to be themselves. Which I think is the authors point. But to address that I would lean on teaching people philosophy. Which sounds odd, but it can really help people discern what their values are, what they think is right and wrong, and how they fit into the world.
Even with that though I think there might be other issues facing young people. Things like depression and the expectation to be sexual, famous, and successful with no clear path in America to do any of that in a healthy way.
This was an excellent video. I was struck by how much of the discussion was focused on celebrities and consumption, and unsurprisingly, she later elaborated on how societies have policed gender...
This was an excellent video. I was struck by how much of the discussion was focused on celebrities and consumption, and unsurprisingly, she later elaborated on how societies have policed gender roles as a means of social control. Her expansion on Big Joel's point that we can't solve these problems by finding the "right words" or the "right guy" was in a similar vein. There comes a point where you can't fight the system by becoming the system, and it's got nothing to do with pragmatism. The idea of a "real man" is a mirage. Whether it's the misogynist alpha mate of Tate and Peterson or the progressive homme déconstruit, at the end of the day the goal is to be accepted by other people and society as a whole. If you boil that need for community down to whether you can get a date, you'll end up with toxicity no matter what, because these young men are just following whatever trends seem most socially advantageous, and they'll leave it behind when they fail to measure up to the dream life marketed to us in the media. Help people learn to connect with more empathy and less judgement, give them more opportunities for connection that's not behind a screen, and stop marketing romantic relationships as the most important metric of self-worth there can possibly be.
I couldn't find it on the mobile site, but on the desktop site you can hit the 3 dots next to save and a show transcript button pops up. A bit unwieldy to copy/paste or view on mobile though.
I couldn't find it on the mobile site, but on the desktop site you can hit the 3 dots next to save and a show transcript button pops up. A bit unwieldy to copy/paste or view on mobile though.
The terms themselves, "masculine" and "feminine", are such outdated, ambiguous, and charged terms, that adding on "toxic" or "positive" to either one just confuses the issue even more. Not to...
The terms themselves, "masculine" and "feminine", are such outdated, ambiguous, and charged terms, that adding on "toxic" or "positive" to either one just confuses the issue even more. Not to mention, there seems to be an overemphasis on examining "toxic masculinity", to where men are constantly being boxed in, put under a microscope for everything that they do, and made to feel like they have to regulate every aspect of their behavior to meet whatever the culturally acceptable definition of "positive masculinity" is. It's as if the world has become hyper-focused on "toxic masculinity" as the source of all of society's ills, that it's placed women on these ivory pedestals that they can do no wrong. Their bodies are temples no matter what shape, their minds are open and empathetic, they're above criticism.
Suppose we as a "world society" started focusing on "toxic femininity" instead, we never hear the term, but surely it exists too, right? Google has 13+ million results for "toxic masculinity", yet only 5 million results for "toxic femininity", why is that? Are women just naturally superior to men and incapable of toxic behavior? Suppose there were mountains of books on the subject, large-scale ad campaigns trying to educate women about how their sex was propagating all these damaging things in society, if we decried the lack of positive feminine role models, and just beat it into young women's minds that they were walking a fine line between toxicity and positivity. Say one wrong thing and you're obviously a horrible woman.
The whole focus on "toxic masculinity" itself just feels very accusatory and unnecessarily gendered, as if it's blaming men of being the sole source of society's problems. Why don't we instead focus on specific "toxic behaviors", things that either men or women might be guilty of? Focus on individual traits that are common between sexes and not accuse one side or the other of being a the sole source of toxicity? I've heard FAR more women accuse men of "not being man enough" than I've heard men say that to other men? If anything, men usually say it in a joking manner or if they're being competitive. When women say it, they're going for blood and they're trying to hurt, insult, and belittle a man. Not that men don't do that too, but let's stop focusing exclusively on men as being the only ones doing it.
I'm 40 and I grew up in a household that was a mish-mash of different traditional & non-traditional roles that my parents filled. My Dad did most of the cooking, but was also the main breadwinner, while my Mom did all the home improvement fixy power-tool stuff, but also was a stay-at-home Mom for most of our lives growing up. I'll let my kids express themselves however they want to, or fill whatever roles they want to in life, the focus is on good behaviors, not conforming to some arbitrary gender ideal.
This response is kind of wild to me. Like, our foundational mythos in western culture decries the weakness and trouble caused by "the fairer sex" from Eve convincing Adam to eat from the tree of...
Suppose there were mountains of books on the subject, large-scale ad campaigns trying to educate women about how their sex was propagating all these damaging things in society, if we decried the lack of positive feminine role models, and just beat it into young women's minds that they were walking a fine line between toxicity and positivity. Say one wrong thing and you're obviously a horrible woman.
This response is kind of wild to me. Like, our foundational mythos in western culture decries the weakness and trouble caused by "the fairer sex" from Eve convincing Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil to Pandora opening the box releasing ill and misery into the world. I've had people tell me to my face that "letting women vote was a mistake" so I know this kind of thinking isn't dead nor just relegated to isolated nasty internet forums.
Focus on individual traits that are common between sexes and not accuse one side or the other of being a the sole source of toxicity? I've heard FAR more women accuse men of "not being man enough" than I've heard men say that to other men[.]
Many women themselves perpetuate this form of toxicity in our society. Toxic masculinity is not just something "men do," but is a larger set of cultural attitudes (which anyone can hold) about gender roles which are actively harmful to both men and women. This is also why you can't just treat it as 'bad apples' or bad behaviors caused by individual actors. It's a systemic problem woven into the fabric of society.
Edits: Removed some condescending language in my comment.
I will not dive too deep in your thoughtful response. Sorry for that. However I would like to simply chip in on your points. I find that the problem around such issues is that there rarely is a...
I will not dive too deep in your thoughtful response. Sorry for that. However I would like to simply chip in on your points.
I've had people tell me to my face that "letting women vote was a mistake" so I know this kind of thinking isn't dead nor just relegated to isolated nasty internet forums.
I find that the problem around such issues is that there rarely is a structured, intelligent debate around them, without the fear of bumping up against established thought and taboo. Nothing should be taboo, as long as we approach it with love, compassion, understanding and with these as our goal for our fellow man. However, women's right to vote, worker's rights, democracy etc. all these things we consider as self-evident truths - are not. They should be up for debate. If anything, since it is so elementary when these people come up with such radically different opinions, you should have the toolbox to appeal to their ethos, logic and feelings to guide them to the natural truth.
And I think the main issue around debating is due to fallibility of man. We are subverted into learned bad behaviors of power assertion, domination etc. and this leads to political doublespeak which makes the whole endeavor of true discussion just next to impossible. If we can't ground ourselves to the true definition of good, nothing can place meaningful roots.
I can't help but disagree with your perspective on this, though I am happy to read it. I agree in principle that each and every idea, does on some level deserve consideration, but this leads to...
I can't help but disagree with your perspective on this, though I am happy to read it. I agree in principle that each and every idea, does on some level deserve consideration, but this leads to the paradox of tolerance whereas malicious intolerant ideas, allowed to spread in the name of tolerance, lead to the destruction of tolerance and freedom of ideas. As an example, this drama plays out like clockwork on basically any internet forum which advocates for nearly total free speech and to countless nations which have transformed into authoritarian states throughout history.
To put a finer point on it, under what context should I entertain the idea that geocide of a certain people is good and righteous? And should I be welcoming to those who believe that in the social spaces I inhabit? I would emphatically say no.
If anything, since it is so elementary when these people come up with such radically different opinions, you should have the toolbox to appeal to their ethos, logic and feelings to guide them to the natural truth.
The person who told me that woman's voting rights was a mistake, was not speaking from some logically arrived position, but from emotion and prejudice. Such debate is rarely fruitful because the ideas are not logically coherent, the believer did not arrive at them rationally, and is unlikely to be led rationally away from them. I wasn't facing off some unorthodox philosopher who might have a point. Some people are just not worth the trouble debating -- and this is a practical consideration -- as time and life are finite.
Thanks a lot for the response. This discussion is fruitful. I have a couple points here, which I am dividing in sections. The Paradox of Intolerance I have specifically addressed on my last...
Thanks a lot for the response. This discussion is fruitful. I have a couple points here, which I am dividing in sections.
The Paradox of Intolerance
I have specifically addressed on my last paragraph which I will quote below.
And I think the main issue around debating is due to fallibility of man. We are subverted into learned bad behaviors of power assertion, domination etc. and this leads to political doublespeak which makes the whole endeavor of true discussion just next to impossible. If we can't ground ourselves to the true definition of good, nothing can place meaningful roots.
What I aim to illustrate here is that the issue is not the total freedom of expression and the desire to question anything and everything. It is that we lack substantive virtue and the lived experience to influence others through it. I will explain this with a brief example: A malicious actor supports the idea that genocide is appropriate. You say, it's bad. Then the other person compels you to support why it is bad. Long story short, 2-3 branches within this tree, it's evident that it all comes down to your individual morality. Now, morality is supported by axioms (if you are a materialist) or universal truths (if you follow religion). It all comes down to them and people can reason through these concrete ideas (and they have been doing so through philosophy and theology). This is the context under which you would entertain, maybe not the idea of genocide (which is a horrible monstrosity), but the idea of conversing with a person that has that opinion.
There are many additional reasons to engage in such debate. The challenge of your ideas and rhetoric, the solidarity built with the other person in the pursuit of truth. The expression of an opinion that many have, but hold to themselves. The creation of community around your stance. The chance to better understand the human psyche and an opportunity to speak with what's broken in other people (and may well be broken in us).
Farmers are very diligent in removing weeds from the crops while they are small, all the time. Democracy and virtue must do the same every step of the way, all the time while respecting each and every human in the process.
It is an absolute ideal to be able to commune with every person around us and love them (not their evil ideas and thoughts) as people. However, as you mention, we are limited on the things we can/ want to support. We can, at least, try to reach out to these people. Offer our firm, strong opinions (that are not afraid to be tested and hold water under every circumstance) but do so, not with a slap but with a hug.
In the end, tolerance of people that just agree with me is intolerance. Thus, if nothing else, tolerance risks to be able to find a solution for these malicious actors. At least it tries.
Logical debate vs feelings
I will not expand too much on this. Some people, truly, are not worth debating (you are not one of them). However, as I mentioned on my quoted passage, ideas that are so important as to have you shun a person, deny them or convict them, should have explanations that appeal to reason, ethos and feelings.
I can't help but wonder how it would go over if I, as a man, gave a treatise on what femininity should look like in women. Somehow not good, I would expect, and rightfully so.
We here on Tildes have rejected the idea that the only people who post in ~life.men should be men and the only people who post in ~life.women should be women. By extension, we shouldn't reject out of hand observations by people who aren't the "right gender" to be commenting on them. Instead, we should evaluate them based on their arguments, and whether you agree with this video or not, it's not a misandrist screed.
It is important to note that allowing all to contribute to a category does not prevent such contributions from being criticized for misconceptions or a perceived lack of legitimacy.
Another distinction to make, here, is that @PaiMei did not directly criticize another Tildes user, but rather the author of the content another user posted.
What I said was not intended to shut down criticism or discussion. However, I don't think it's constructive to dismiss the video out of hand or compare it to "a treatise on what femininity should look like," which isn't a good description of it anyway.
I think the point is that boys don't need to hear from women what it means to be a man. Boys and young men need strong male role models talking about their views on masculinity, what it means to be good man, and how men can be a positive view on the world.
I think this is a valid point because the person delivering the message changes how the message is heard, perceived, accepted, etc. If you have never been in my shoes (because you're not a man), you literally have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to being a man. Sure, you can share your opinion but also, I'll share my opinion that you should keep your opinion to yourself. Much the same as if I (a white man) tried to share my ideas how an African American could be a better leader for african americans.
I see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure everyone on Tildes is an adult. That's not to say we're entirely past the point of needing role models, but it's not the same situation since this is a video about masculinity as a concept and how it's propagated in pop culture. It's not meant to be taken as advice or a policy prescription, but rather observing a trend and how various people, including several men, view it. If people who supposedly practice positive masculinity aren't really walking the walk, there should be discussions of that by everyone who's affected, including how to improve the movement for positive masculinity rather than ditching it as a concept.
In addition, while I agree with what you're saying that people who don't share an identity should be respectful of those who are, I think there are nuances with how the video analyzes masculinity. For one example from the video, when discussing how some men who publicly state how progressive they are but repeat misogynistic ideas in private, it makes sense for women who have experience dating them to weigh in. I get that it can seem intrusive for non-men to be elevated in men's spaces, but I think that the discussions on here leaned towards having ~life.men as a group about men and men's issues but not necessarily limited to men. This fits with how other groups such as ~lgbt allow everyone to contribute, and I also believe that Tildes aspires to a site culture that isn't so acrimonious where people who don't fit the categories stated can still interact and respectfully participate in spaces like that. Even though there are certainly places both on and off the internet that are more restrictive, I don't think we should replicate that mindset here even though it's not inherently bad in all cases.
Anyway, I just got rambly and felt like sharing my thoughts on the matter as a man. Hopefully it didn't come across as a lecture instead.
Of course. That is a totally valid observation.
I agree, but I personally didn't see any issues with her tone in this video. The only part that could be problematic was when she lightly mocked the "deep masculinity" espoused by people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, and I can see how that could be taken as a hit against men's self-expression in other contexts. However, it was limited to that group, and they've also been roundly criticized by people who promote healthy masculinity. I get that people may feel defensive about this, as well as generally wanting to promote stuff by men in a group for men's topics. However, I'm frustrated by the knee-jerk reaction of judging it like it's some kind of lecture, since it didn't seem preachy or condescending to me at all.
There are a lot of interesting subtopics that comprise the overarching topic of "men" (or "women"), and I'm in complete agreement that all should be welcome in both spaces. We are inextricably interwoven and thus should all have our say on those various subtopics. For example, if there's a post on dating, I would think the opinion of both sexes on the thread would be extremely valuable. Or workplace norms, fitness... there are tons.
But this particular post is going right to the heart of "what should masculinity be?" What is it to be "a man"? I believe that is a question that is best answered by men. I'll go back to my original question, for it was not entirely rhetorical. How would it be perceived if I went into a women's group and gave them a 20-minute lecture (at times a bit condescending/mocking, as was this video) on what "true femininity" should be? That wouldn't come off as the least bit inappropriate or overbearing? I'd feel extremely "dickish" in that scenario, for lack of a better term.
I think you're 100% right that a man trying to talk to a woman's group about what femininity means would be viciously attacked, shouted down, forced out of the room, etc.
I'm also not a trans person, what value could I possibly add to a discussion about what it means to be trans?
/r/menslib had the same problem, every post was "what's wrong with men" or "what's wrong with me for being a man" and always pointed towards women as leading by example.
All the conversations shunned masculine identity. Everything was defined as toxic or patriarchical, or somehow stunted, ignorant or immature.
Masculinity was framed as being defined purely by negative traits, and unnecessary. Everything about men was either something that needed changing, or something harmful.
Men's conversations continue to be defined this way - if you're a man, it's your responsibility to change yourself, because of your harmful traits, because of toxic masculinity, because of the patriarchy, because of everything women have suffered at the hands of men. Because of all the things that are wrong with men.
Men's conversations continue to be defined in terms of hurting women and hurting society.
Those conversations aren't about self improvement, responsibility, accountability, integrity or any positive traits whatsoever.
I think this group should have a positive leading purpose instead.
I have to admit, I only skimmed the video and listened to a few parts, but I was also confused what her proposal was, other than removing a safe and reasonable landing for young men who need some type of solid ground to plant their feet.
I think that many of us, who would consider ourselves progressive, can get lost in the pursuit of "Advancing" our agenda without realizing that it takes time and there needs to be pit stops on the way. Ok, she's saying she doesn't think identity should be framed in "Manhood" because it's still gendered...? I don't know that I agree with that issue, even though it's complicated for those who are gender fluid, binary, or transitioned, but I understand the argument. But she doesn't seem to leave space for the fact that within recent memory, every man was taking notes from the same "Manhood" playbook and we've moved considerably further away from that singular model. Give us a little bit of a break to catch our breath, then let's keep progressing.
I feel like this is the same issue we see play out in allyship, where someone tries to ally to their best ability and it is rejected because they don't do it perfectly. Let's make some space for men who have moved from Toxic masculinity to positive masculinity and take that as a win, not immediately attack them for not running the entire race all at once.
She explicitly acknowledges this, directly contrasting her own discussion with something more 'pragmatic'. Is there not room for things which aren't concrete proposals for how to incrementally make the world better? Such things are very valuable, to be sure, but it's absurd to expect that everything be one.
Like I said, I only skimmed the video so I must have missed that. Glad to hear she specifically addressed this.
This is where a lot of these critiques fall short for me. If being a man is associated with negative traits that are not present (or not as present) in non-men, then being good for a man necessitates acting in a way that redirects or diminishes those negative aspects that are primarily exhibited in men. This cuts both ways, though. It makes sense that there are also positive aspects of manhood that can be emphasized, for the betterment of everyone. That’s more “being good at being a man” than “being good.” Those, to me, seem to be the two sides of being a “good man” that people invoke.
There’s a huge caveat here that not being “good at being a man” is not something that deserves shaming. It is important not to cut anyone down for not being good at “being a man.” That said, the video’s idea that men cut each other down doesn’t seem to be on point. Most spaces, in particular all-male spaces, that I’ve been in have had way more camaraderie and pulling other men up than they do pushing people down who don’t look like Rocky. That part really didn’t track for me.
Editing to comment that I thought there were some good points in the video and that I appreciated her focus that being good overall is a good target. The rest feels like details and approaches on the broader goal that most people seem to share.
Being a good person is the point. Before worrying about fitting in some mold called "man", fit into the "human" role. Both are made up, but being a human is both older, has a bigger scope, and inherently leads to self improvement by acknowledging yourself as a person, with needs, feelings, and this weird thing called consciousness.
"Being a man" should be a consequence of understanding yourself. It's therefore specific to you, which is why trying to fit into the predefined role feels conflicting. It's like religion: there's some basic truth there that pulls you in, but trying a "one size fits all" approach is extremely misguided.
I find your response to be riddled with many contradictions.
Here I feel you have an aversion towards what humans made. It seems like you are saying it lacks real truth and purpose. Thus, why should we fit in these roles at all?
Here it looks like you answer my previous question. However, if older is the goal, we can just be more hurtful to people around us or have inequitable systems of organization, just because we've had this modus operandi for a long time anyway. Additionally this is just an assertion. Why does being human predate being a man?
Again there are a lot of assertions here. Maybe it feels conflicting because there is new societal pressure that puts you in conflict with who you really are. Namely, the position you're making here and that assertion that the role doesn't really exist, it's a choice and you're supposed to make the right one, is what is creating the conflict in the first place.
Disclaimer: I'm in complete opposition with your last sentence. I feel that, regarding your implicit definitions of roles, good, bad, consciousness and our nature, religion is what provides us with the only way of reconciliation with them, access via truth and personal happiness and purpose fulfillment.
Oh boy, I have watched the video. Lots of good points. Most of them, really. I don't like the notion of "why be good men and not good people?" because it feels like a form of oppression. Would you say that to a trans man?
The reason why it is important for me to be a man is the same reason why it is important for others to be a woman or whatever else they choose: because I want it to be the case. Gender is performative, and I choose to perform my own version of masculinity. That's all.
Everyone needs role models, and it is good when the role models we choose embody positive ideals. Yes, you can problematize it further, sure. But why?
It's turtles all way the way down, everything can be problematized to infinity in a recursive frenzy. Anything is bad if you look at it hard enough. I won't say it's wrong, but boy it is tiring. Young people sure have a lot of energy.
Just take the shortcut to gender performativity and you're pretty much done. Read Gender Trouble. No further problematization required.
For now, forgive me for cherishing the fact that some young men are looking for models of behavior which are progressive and good. Seems like a good idea.
I'm old :P
I agree completely with this. To this end, let me point out two YT videos on the topic I found well-argued and thoughtful about this:
The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander - It's a shame the author (JKR, not the YouTuber lol) has become a bigot and that the movies went really downhill, but at least in the first movie, there's a real boon I think to see an earnest, but unorthodox, take on the male Hollywood hero.
Don't be like Jack - This is a video very different from JJ's usual content, but he's speaking from the heart here about how a lack of identifiable role models for young people (which connects to the performative aspect you brought up) is so incredibly destructive. It's not a video about gender per se, but I think touches on some of the same issues.
I was wondering when/if JJ would show up, here. In a somewhat similar vein, one of JJ's older videos "Male Insecurity and Male Exploitation" is quite good and relevent to the wider set of discussions that have been happening here.
Echoing one thing he mentioned is that a lot of the discussion of mens' issues tends to concern their relationship with women (individually or in aggregate). This obviously makes sense, but I think it often overshadows the equally important relationship men have with other each, and (possibly even more important than either of the previous) mens' relationships with themselves and their own brains.
We've seen some of the second with discussions of Tate and Peterson, but much of that seems to stem more from them being misogynistic than from how they (more so Tate than Peterson) seem to pit men against each other.
Soo, I'm a man and generally think I followed her advice of not worrying about it. I've also taken a gender studies class and toxic masculinity was addressed but framed differently. Mainly as an identity that isn't working for the person or society. That type of masculinity has made a ton of progress.
The Andrew Tate and guiding young men seems like it might be a separate issue. The things advocated their seem more cult like and aren't just giving people a singular identity but an entire world view. In that case I'm not really sure male role models are the solution. To me that's kind of like saying "We want the right people to exploit young people's insecurities and confusion". When young men don't really need to be "men", they just need to be themselves. Which I think is the authors point. But to address that I would lean on teaching people philosophy. Which sounds odd, but it can really help people discern what their values are, what they think is right and wrong, and how they fit into the world.
Even with that though I think there might be other issues facing young people. Things like depression and the expectation to be sexual, famous, and successful with no clear path in America to do any of that in a healthy way.
This was an excellent video. I was struck by how much of the discussion was focused on celebrities and consumption, and unsurprisingly, she later elaborated on how societies have policed gender roles as a means of social control. Her expansion on Big Joel's point that we can't solve these problems by finding the "right words" or the "right guy" was in a similar vein. There comes a point where you can't fight the system by becoming the system, and it's got nothing to do with pragmatism. The idea of a "real man" is a mirage. Whether it's the misogynist alpha mate of Tate and Peterson or the progressive homme déconstruit, at the end of the day the goal is to be accepted by other people and society as a whole. If you boil that need for community down to whether you can get a date, you'll end up with toxicity no matter what, because these young men are just following whatever trends seem most socially advantageous, and they'll leave it behind when they fail to measure up to the dream life marketed to us in the media. Help people learn to connect with more empathy and less judgement, give them more opportunities for connection that's not behind a screen, and stop marketing romantic relationships as the most important metric of self-worth there can possibly be.
I don't suppose there's a transcript available for this?
I couldn't find it on the mobile site, but on the desktop site you can hit the 3 dots next to save and a show transcript button pops up. A bit unwieldy to copy/paste or view on mobile though.
Unwieldy is right haha, that's not even easy to read. Ah well, it gets the job done. Appreciate the tip.
The terms themselves, "masculine" and "feminine", are such outdated, ambiguous, and charged terms, that adding on "toxic" or "positive" to either one just confuses the issue even more. Not to mention, there seems to be an overemphasis on examining "toxic masculinity", to where men are constantly being boxed in, put under a microscope for everything that they do, and made to feel like they have to regulate every aspect of their behavior to meet whatever the culturally acceptable definition of "positive masculinity" is. It's as if the world has become hyper-focused on "toxic masculinity" as the source of all of society's ills, that it's placed women on these ivory pedestals that they can do no wrong. Their bodies are temples no matter what shape, their minds are open and empathetic, they're above criticism.
Suppose we as a "world society" started focusing on "toxic femininity" instead, we never hear the term, but surely it exists too, right? Google has 13+ million results for "toxic masculinity", yet only 5 million results for "toxic femininity", why is that? Are women just naturally superior to men and incapable of toxic behavior? Suppose there were mountains of books on the subject, large-scale ad campaigns trying to educate women about how their sex was propagating all these damaging things in society, if we decried the lack of positive feminine role models, and just beat it into young women's minds that they were walking a fine line between toxicity and positivity. Say one wrong thing and you're obviously a horrible woman.
The whole focus on "toxic masculinity" itself just feels very accusatory and unnecessarily gendered, as if it's blaming men of being the sole source of society's problems. Why don't we instead focus on specific "toxic behaviors", things that either men or women might be guilty of? Focus on individual traits that are common between sexes and not accuse one side or the other of being a the sole source of toxicity? I've heard FAR more women accuse men of "not being man enough" than I've heard men say that to other men? If anything, men usually say it in a joking manner or if they're being competitive. When women say it, they're going for blood and they're trying to hurt, insult, and belittle a man. Not that men don't do that too, but let's stop focusing exclusively on men as being the only ones doing it.
I'm 40 and I grew up in a household that was a mish-mash of different traditional & non-traditional roles that my parents filled. My Dad did most of the cooking, but was also the main breadwinner, while my Mom did all the home improvement fixy power-tool stuff, but also was a stay-at-home Mom for most of our lives growing up. I'll let my kids express themselves however they want to, or fill whatever roles they want to in life, the focus is on good behaviors, not conforming to some arbitrary gender ideal.
This response is kind of wild to me. Like, our foundational mythos in western culture decries the weakness and trouble caused by "the fairer sex" from Eve convincing Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil to Pandora opening the box releasing ill and misery into the world. I've had people tell me to my face that "letting women vote was a mistake" so I know this kind of thinking isn't dead nor just relegated to isolated nasty internet forums.
Many women themselves perpetuate this form of toxicity in our society. Toxic masculinity is not just something "men do," but is a larger set of cultural attitudes (which anyone can hold) about gender roles which are actively harmful to both men and women. This is also why you can't just treat it as 'bad apples' or bad behaviors caused by individual actors. It's a systemic problem woven into the fabric of society.
Edits: Removed some condescending language in my comment.
I will not dive too deep in your thoughtful response. Sorry for that. However I would like to simply chip in on your points.
I find that the problem around such issues is that there rarely is a structured, intelligent debate around them, without the fear of bumping up against established thought and taboo. Nothing should be taboo, as long as we approach it with love, compassion, understanding and with these as our goal for our fellow man. However, women's right to vote, worker's rights, democracy etc. all these things we consider as self-evident truths - are not. They should be up for debate. If anything, since it is so elementary when these people come up with such radically different opinions, you should have the toolbox to appeal to their ethos, logic and feelings to guide them to the natural truth.
And I think the main issue around debating is due to fallibility of man. We are subverted into learned bad behaviors of power assertion, domination etc. and this leads to political doublespeak which makes the whole endeavor of true discussion just next to impossible. If we can't ground ourselves to the true definition of good, nothing can place meaningful roots.
I can't help but disagree with your perspective on this, though I am happy to read it. I agree in principle that each and every idea, does on some level deserve consideration, but this leads to the paradox of tolerance whereas malicious intolerant ideas, allowed to spread in the name of tolerance, lead to the destruction of tolerance and freedom of ideas. As an example, this drama plays out like clockwork on basically any internet forum which advocates for nearly total free speech and to countless nations which have transformed into authoritarian states throughout history.
To put a finer point on it, under what context should I entertain the idea that geocide of a certain people is good and righteous? And should I be welcoming to those who believe that in the social spaces I inhabit? I would emphatically say no.
The person who told me that woman's voting rights was a mistake, was not speaking from some logically arrived position, but from emotion and prejudice. Such debate is rarely fruitful because the ideas are not logically coherent, the believer did not arrive at them rationally, and is unlikely to be led rationally away from them. I wasn't facing off some unorthodox philosopher who might have a point. Some people are just not worth the trouble debating -- and this is a practical consideration -- as time and life are finite.
Thanks a lot for the response. This discussion is fruitful. I have a couple points here, which I am dividing in sections.
The Paradox of Intolerance
I have specifically addressed on my last paragraph which I will quote below.
What I aim to illustrate here is that the issue is not the total freedom of expression and the desire to question anything and everything. It is that we lack substantive virtue and the lived experience to influence others through it. I will explain this with a brief example: A malicious actor supports the idea that genocide is appropriate. You say, it's bad. Then the other person compels you to support why it is bad. Long story short, 2-3 branches within this tree, it's evident that it all comes down to your individual morality. Now, morality is supported by axioms (if you are a materialist) or universal truths (if you follow religion). It all comes down to them and people can reason through these concrete ideas (and they have been doing so through philosophy and theology). This is the context under which you would entertain, maybe not the idea of genocide (which is a horrible monstrosity), but the idea of conversing with a person that has that opinion.
There are many additional reasons to engage in such debate. The challenge of your ideas and rhetoric, the solidarity built with the other person in the pursuit of truth. The expression of an opinion that many have, but hold to themselves. The creation of community around your stance. The chance to better understand the human psyche and an opportunity to speak with what's broken in other people (and may well be broken in us).
Farmers are very diligent in removing weeds from the crops while they are small, all the time. Democracy and virtue must do the same every step of the way, all the time while respecting each and every human in the process.
It is an absolute ideal to be able to commune with every person around us and love them (not their evil ideas and thoughts) as people. However, as you mention, we are limited on the things we can/ want to support. We can, at least, try to reach out to these people. Offer our firm, strong opinions (that are not afraid to be tested and hold water under every circumstance) but do so, not with a slap but with a hug.
In the end, tolerance of people that just agree with me is intolerance. Thus, if nothing else, tolerance risks to be able to find a solution for these malicious actors. At least it tries.
Logical debate vs feelings
I will not expand too much on this. Some people, truly, are not worth debating (you are not one of them). However, as I mentioned on my quoted passage, ideas that are so important as to have you shun a person, deny them or convict them, should have explanations that appeal to reason, ethos and feelings.