27 votes

The Buff Scammer, isolation, and the male loneliness epidemic

16 comments

  1. [7]
    smores
    Link
    You know... This is actually a really insightful take, I think. I would maybe even further qualify this as "straight cis male sexuality". Gay male sexuality is (rightfully, I think!) very much...

    Other issues also exist culturally, such as male sexuality being seen as uniquely predatory and regressive while others are seen as empowering, creating a lot of issues in people.

    You know... This is actually a really insightful take, I think. I would maybe even further qualify this as "straight cis male sexuality". Gay male sexuality is (rightfully, I think!) very much celebrated, at least by circles accepting of gayness.

    There's a reason for this cultural perspective: the vast majority of predators are men, and a horrifyingly large portion of non-men have experienced at least some level of predatory sexual behavior from men. But I would contend that most straight male sexuality is probably still not predatory? I don't have numbers for this. But there are a lot of straight men engaging in sex, and I suspect most of it is mutually consensual and mutually enjoyed.

    I don't think it's wrong for femme folks to be wary of or averse to sexual advances from men. And I definitely think that the way we teach boys about sex and relationships is alarmingly problematic, and directly leads to the predatory behavior we see from so many men.

    But it also sucks that there's a real message being delivered to young men that their sexuality specifically is problematic, while basically every other group is being told that their sexuality is beautiful and powerful. And to be clear, I don't even think this is the dominant message — that winner is still the Buff Scammer, which is obviously also a terrible message designed to make men feel bad about themselves.

    I have no idea what to do about this, but it does suck, and it is nice to see it expressed well and with nuance.

    29 votes
    1. [3]
      sparksbet
      Link Parent
      Yeah, I think the fact that this post is on Tumblr helped make this point particularly salient because it's so often a very progressive, queer space, and those spaces are often where people fall...

      Yeah, I think the fact that this post is on Tumblr helped make this point particularly salient because it's so often a very progressive, queer space, and those spaces are often where people fall into this trap (or, less charitably, where radfems try to launder their gender essentialism as being progressive).

      There is obviously a huge amount of societal stuff that leads to men being more often perpetrators of a wide array of pretty awful behaviors (and not even only towards non-men -- men are very often victims of other men too), and I do think that support for victims is deeply necessary. But framing men as inherently predatory I think is ultimately counterproductive if we actually want to encourage men to have healthy, positive behavior towards themselves and others. It absolves men of the choices they make in perpetuating these behaviors and utterly fails to offer an alternative path forward for men who don't want to do so.

      15 votes
      1. [2]
        smores
        Link Parent
        I don't have anything to add, really, but I totally agree with everything you've said here, especially this: Thanks for sharing this conversation, I got a lot out of it!

        I don't have anything to add, really, but I totally agree with everything you've said here, especially this:

        It absolves men of the choices they make in perpetuating these behaviors and utterly fails to offer an alternative path forward for men who don't want to do so.

        Thanks for sharing this conversation, I got a lot out of it!

        8 votes
        1. slade
          Link Parent
          It makes me think of comments like "oh you know how boys are" being used to justify and attribute an individual's behavior, and how it's often said with a tone that says that the behavior is...

          It makes me think of comments like "oh you know how boys are" being used to justify and attribute an individual's behavior, and how it's often said with a tone that says that the behavior is expected of them.

          7 votes
    2. Grzmot
      Link Parent
      The type of straight male behaviors that, if taken to the extreme, lead to harm and assault, are at the same time, if exercised in moderate amounts, explicitly desired. Men are still expected to...

      There's a reason for this cultural perspective: the vast majority of predators are men, and a horrifyingly large portion of non-men have experienced at least some level of predatory sexual behavior from men. But I would contend that most straight male sexuality is probably still not predatory?

      The type of straight male behaviors that, if taken to the extreme, lead to harm and assault, are at the same time, if exercised in moderate amounts, explicitly desired. Men are still expected to make the first move when dating. Confidence and (monetary) independence are still highly valued traits, which if taken to the extreme, lead to this classic manosphere toxic masculinity described in the tumblr post from OP. But if you take that confidence down a few notches, then it's what's required for dating. The "traditional rugged man" is what a lot of women still like and want.

      (Edit: I remember years ago reading an article from a reputable German newspaper about how university educated women still look towards a man that is higher on the educational ladder than them, which narrows your dating scope significantly when you have a Master's, lol.)

      At the same time, I think that considering how many individuals on the internet this discussion involves every single time, you're just going to get a lot of conflicting opinions on top. It's the usual mistake of online discussions involving 3+ people.

      I think there's also a lack of role models right now. Look at famous men. The really famous ones. What do they embody? What do they stand for? Could a boy growing up, lacking good examples in his immediate surroundings, use them as a guiding star? It just seems dire to me.

      5 votes
    3. teaearlgraycold
      Link Parent
      Even in homosexual situations I've seen this collective male guilt manifest. Two male friends of mine - one pan and one bi - are currently in a strained friendship because one asked the other if...

      Even in homosexual situations I've seen this collective male guilt manifest. Two male friends of mine - one pan and one bi - are currently in a strained friendship because one asked the other if they'd like to cuddle together twice without getting an enthusiastic response either time. The guy that was doing the rejecting clearly wasn't being as clear and verbal in his rejection as necessary for the other (somewhat autistic) guy to perceive. The requester also should have realized that asking twice without getting a yes meant he'd overstepped and should have apologized.

      When I brought this up to my friend to suggest he apologize he clearly felt very guilty. I kept telling him that I knew (because I had been told so) that apologizing would completely clear up the matter and that he's not a bad person for making this mistake. That didn't quite make it through at the time, but hopefully will after a couple of days of reflection. Men are taught that any kind of mistake in courtship is a tremendous grievance if not outright sexual harassment. Most of the blame here goes to the truly abusive men out there, but some of it goes to the rest of humanity that doesn't have the emotional intelligence to discuss this stuff and educate each other on nuance.

      4 votes
    4. lou
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      93% of sexual crimes are commited by men. Of course most men are not predators, but that kind of statistical imbalance is hard to overcome. I think we'll just have to accept that we have to watch...

      93% of sexual crimes are commited by men. Of course most men are not predators, but that kind of statistical imbalance is hard to overcome.

      I think we'll just have to accept that we have to watch our behavior constantly in order to not be perceived as a threat and that is unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

      Gay men are also constantly watched and scrutinized by the way.

      1 vote
  2. [2]
    sparksbet
    Link
    In the past, I've been very critical of a lot of the posts people have shared here discussing the "male loneliness epidemic". I've found myself very dissatisfied with most of the "discourse"...

    In the past, I've been very critical of a lot of the posts people have shared here discussing the "male loneliness epidemic". I've found myself very dissatisfied with most of the "discourse" surrounding it, where I've encountered a lot of stuff that's, frankly, rife with misogyny. But I do think it's a worthwhile topic worth addressing from the right angle, because the phenomenon in question is real and is caused, imo, by a lot of complex intermingling societal factors.

    I suspect most other Tildes users don't use Tumblr and might scoff at someone sharing a Tumblr post here, but I think this particular post and its replies are some of the best, most nuanced discussion I've seen of the topic. And, for the record, I think the fact that the OP is a trans woman and the first reply is from someone who's trans masculine are a big part of that. I think transitioning socially does genuinely give many trans people a lot of unique insight into how society and gender interact in ways that aren't necessarily obvious to most cis people.

    I hope others here appreciate the linked discussion and hopefully gain some insight from it. I know I did!

    18 votes
    1. Grzmot
      Link Parent
      This is a lovely post, thank you for posting it!

      This is a lovely post, thank you for posting it!

  3. [5]
    granfdad
    Link
    i love this. every time i see discourse about "how can we solve the manosphere", someone always makes the point that women doing more emotional work to pander to men is a terrible idea. they're...

    so anyway i think one of the most important things we can do as a society, that doesn't even require anyone to take on the burden of Managing Dudes' Feelings For Them, and which is conveniently a much smaller target than Fix Manhood Systemically, is to stop validating the unhinged reactionary narrative that Male Intimacy Is By Definition Gay.

    because like. it's funny when it's fiction. but when a real guy who is not gay, which is statistically gonna be most of them, is getting barraged from both sides of the political aisle with the message that he can't have an emotional connection of any significance with a male friend without Proving that the world Knows Better Than He Does and he's clearly gay and just lying to himself about it.

    i love this. every time i see discourse about "how can we solve the manosphere", someone always makes the point that women doing more emotional work to pander to men is a terrible idea. they're obviously right, but it's never said in good faith and is more used as a way to avoid any critical analysis of left-wing cultural ideals and fall back on "men are bad" rhetoric. this is the first time that i've seen anyone make that argument in an honest way, and it's an incredibly good point.

    i'm a cis man, and i haven't ever experienced the "That's Gay" thing earnestly, but certainly i do not open up to any of my male friends as much as i would to any other friend, and that's already not a lot. that point got me thinking about my own experience, and i think it's touching on something that's a more specific version of the root cause: male friendships are mean.

    there's a stereotype that men are mean to each other's faces (and nice behind their backs) and that women are mean behind each other's backs (but nice to their faces), but that stereotype always comes with some kind of implication that the male mean-ness is... better? like, it's not equally as harmful? sure, there's banter that never actually leaves any emotional damage but when so much friendly male interaction walks that line, it (accidentally) gets crossed a lot and you end up genuinely hurt. when everyone else shrugs it off as just more banter, you're pressured to let the hurtful stuff go as you would with harmless stuff and you build up a distrust for these people, even if you like them!

    this is sort of a stream-of-consciousness comment, and i'm now not so sure which of the two issues comes first: are men mean to each other to not seem gay, or are men scared of being called gay because that's the kind of insult that might get thrown around?

    in my own experience, the "That's Gay" thing actually manifests as the complete opposite: men will act gay for their homies, with the intention of laughing it off. i really don't know what kind of cultural aspects contribute to that but it gives a vibe of "making a facade of male intimacy to get a hit of that security, but still maintaining the low-level homophobia of 'haha no but thats actually fucked if i did that for real' to keep up masculine appearances/affirm my own gender"

    i have no grand point to make, but thought i would say that i liked the post.

    At some point in my transition, the "hate yourself, get an eating disorder, buy product" messaging I get switched from woman flavor to man flavor, and omfg. What the hell is this shit!

    welcome to the club, it sucks in this corner too.

    13 votes
    1. blivet
      Link Parent
      This topic somehow reminds me of an article I read in the Village Voice sometime back in the 1980s. A woman writer passed as a man for a while and wrote about her experiences. She went to a...

      This topic somehow reminds me of an article I read in the Village Voice sometime back in the 1980s. A woman writer passed as a man for a while and wrote about her experiences. She went to a meeting of some kind of men's self-help group (sorry, it's been a few decades), and one of her observations was that she found the spectacle of men sharing their feelings ludicrous. That was one of the few times I have genuinely been outraged by reading something.

      11 votes
    2. smores
      Link Parent
      I did experience the “That’s Gay” thing earnestly — as a boy, I was friends with a lot of girls, and did “girly” sports like cross country and swimming (??) and “girly” activities like art (??),...

      I did experience the “That’s Gay” thing earnestly — as a boy, I was friends with a lot of girls, and did “girly” sports like cross country and swimming (??) and “girly” activities like art (??), and I got called gay and the f word like… quite a bit. I developed a reflexive retort — liking these things doesn’t make you gay, and it doesn’t make you a girl, straight boys can like whatever they damn well please. This was an easy stance to take, because I knew I liked these things, and I also knew I liked girls.

      Except… I also liked boys. And folks that later turned out to be non-binary. And trans. It turns out gender didn't really have any role at all in whether I had romantic or sexual feelings for someone. But I didn't really allow myself to see that until I was halfway through college, because I had spent so much energy defending myself against “That’s Gay”.

      Anyway, all that to say that the “That’s Gay” thing really fucks up straight men's relationships, and it also fucks up queer men (which is, I guess, the intended audience). I guess that's probably not news to anyone, but it was what I thought of when I read your message (which I rather like and agree with, by the way!).

      The other thing I thought of is how fucking constantly my brother, dad, and ex-step-dad insist (in private) that they know the sexuality of someone (always another man) based on ridiculous things like their mannerisms or speech patterns, and have the gall to get extremely defensive and mad at me when I lightly suggest that you can't actually know someone’s sexual preferences based on how they speak. Me. The only queer person they actually know. I get where, psychologically, this defensiveness comes from, but goddammn is it infuriating.

      10 votes
    3. [2]
      papasquat
      Link Parent
      I don't think the "that's gay" thing is overt. It's just sort of an ever present background noise. I don't even know if "that's gay" is really necessarily the right way to frame it though. I was...

      I don't think the "that's gay" thing is overt. It's just sort of an ever present background noise.

      I don't even know if "that's gay" is really necessarily the right way to frame it though. I was never afraid of being perceived as gay growing up. For one, I'm not gay, and I'm pretty secure in my sexuality. Secondly, I wouldn't mind if people did think of me as gay, although I was never bullied for being perceived as gay so maybe that colors my opinion there.

      I think the fear is more like being perceived as weak, rather than gay.

      There's always been an undeniable pressure throughout my whole life. Physically strong, mentally tough, always even keeled, the bedrock, the one who had the answers, the person with the plan.

      This pressure came from friends, family, and especially from women. In the back of my mind, I always knew that if I came home one day, and could just no longer keep it together and fell down on the floor sobbing because of the sheer weight of all of my responsibilities and expectations, a not insufficient amount of respect for me would be irrecoverably lost.

      I think most heterosexual men can identify with this.
      That's the real reason I haven't and still don't open up to people about the things that really weigh on me, and as a result I think I'm worse at relating to other people when things weigh on them.

      It doesn't really have anything to do with being worried about looking gay, at least for me.

      6 votes
      1. 286437714
        Link Parent
        This is my experience also. The best way I ever saw it framed was the difference between what is explicitly requested of us, versus what is implicitly expected of us. It was from a Reddit post a...

        This is my experience also. The best way I ever saw it framed was the difference between what is explicitly requested of us, versus what is implicitly expected of us.

        It was from a Reddit post a decade ago that I saved. Full post in full below, I can't credit the original author because they've deleted it. It came from a thread about 'Why do men always try and solve problems instead of just listening?'

        As men are socialized, we receive many mixed messages from both men and women concerning how we should handle our emotions. On one hand, we are explicitly told by both men and women that we should be secure in showing our emotions, be they sadness, anger, or whatever. This is an example of an explicit attitude. Another way to think about this: it is a feeling or a behavior that a person wants to have.

        On the other hand, both men and women levy sanctions against men who openly display emotions (except for anger, which is highly encouraged as long as it's displayed in a socially acceptable way). These sanctions are not formal, and typically present as insidious forms of social rejection (e.g., exclusion or gossip). These sanctions stem from negative implicit attitudes toward men who openly display emotions.

        Another way to think about this: an implicit attitude is your actual behavior or feeling in a given situation. Negative implicit attitudes toward emotional men are common among participants in social psychology experiments, although the exact reason for this is unknown. It has been hypothesized that presenting behaviors that are not gender normative guess would be that an "emotional male" violates the gender norm of the "emotionally neutral/acceptably aggressive breadwinner."

        Interestingly, negative implicit attitudes toward displays of emotion in men are independent of peoples' explicitly endorsed attitudes. Thus, males are faced with quite a conundrum.

        Someone may explicitly endorse progressive attitudes, encouraging me to be secure about showing my emotions. However, the same person may feel deeply disturbed when these emotions are shown because they harbor negative implicit attitudes regarding male displays of emotion. This behavior is unfortunately all-too-common among men and women alike. As teenagers, we get called "pussy," "bitch," or "fag" by other boys (and, especially important in the shaping process, by girls) when we show emotions aside from anger. As grown men, we don't get called names... instead, someone "forgets" to invite us to their bachelor party, or we get passed-over for a promotion because we are viewed as "ineffectual" by our male and/or female supervisors.

        Concerning romance, we don't want to be in the situation where a woman we are pursuing stops returning our calls because we accidentally opened up to them and ended up disgusting them with our emotions. I would hazard to guess that every man knows at least one person who was dumped by their girlfriend soon after he finally felt comfortable enough to open up to her. Very frustrating and confusing, as you can imagine, to be pestered for months or years about being emotionally unavailable, only to be dumped because you no longer present a "challenge" for your girlfriend. I personally view this as the male analogue of the woman getting dumped after she sleeps with her boyfriend.

        In light of these observations, my own theory is that our attempt to "problem solve" allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Asking questions and providing solutions are actually indirect attempts to empathize without appearing too "emotionally open." Asking you "Did you try xx and xx?" allows men to put themselves in your shoes because it lets them visualize your train of thought. As a bonus, it usually gets the other party to vent MORE when they respond to these questions (e.g., "I thought about doing that, but I know that it will just upset so-and-so. That's another thing that bothers me about this situation, is that so-and-so is always in my business and it stresses me out.").

        Like any heuristic, it provides a desired outcome with sufficient reliability: by attempting to troubleshoot your problems, we get to fulfill our need for empathy and connectedness while preventing social rejection. But like any heuristic, it is not fool-proof, and is likely to cause problems if employed inflexibly (e.g., attempting to "problem solve" for your girlfriend after her mother has just passed-away).

        Since this has generated a lot of interest, I've included a list of relevant sources. In order to view these articles, you will likely need to access these articles through your local library or your university library. Additional tip: type the title of an article into Google, followed by "pdf." If you're lucky, you might find a link to a pdf file housed on the author's homepage.

        1. Good primer on attitude theories (includes information on explicit and implicit attitudes, and provides theories as to why these are treated as separate "islands" by the mind): http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609

        2. Example of how people react unfavorably to men who violate prescriptive gender norms: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/men/11/2/140/

        3. An example of how attitudes related to gender norms influence perception of male or female bosses with non-gender-normative traits: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110000260

        4. I want to note that women are also subjected to sanctions when they violate gender norms: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/2/237.abstract

        5. An example of explicit-implicit attitude incongruence (albeit applied to a different research topic... I included this for illustrative purposes): http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-14550-001

        6. Being an agreeable male (i.e., violating the gender stereotype) puts you at a disadvantage for income compared to women and less agreeable men: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/102/2/390/

        7. Telling men they do not conform to their gender "ideal" invokes acute detrimental effects on their emotions and cognition: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e47127007118278v/

        8. Compared to gay men who exhibit "masculine" behavior, gay men who exhibit "feminine" behavior are viewed more negatively by straight men: http://www.springerlink.com/content/lgr67x0766032884/

        9. Although female identity is generally viewed as a stable trait, identity as a "male" is viewed as conditional (i.e., must be "earned," and can be "revoked" if one fails to adhere to prescriptive gender norms): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025286?dopt=Abstract

        10. UNICEF briefing does an excellent job describing the fundamental processes through which men are socialized, and how this socialization results in harm for both men and women: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/male_roles.pdf

        11. Powerful organizations take advantage of all of us by promoting "traditional" male and female normative gender roles: http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/justice_peace/research/theses/theses2005/fuller_lisa.pdf

        1 vote
  4. JXM
    Link
    Sorry for the long quote, but it's important to get the whole context. I'm really, really glad I never bought into that notion. I think this whole concept of being close with male friends as being...

    an awkwardly big part of the Male Loneliness Epidemic is that male homosocial relationships used to be an important part of masculinity, and have been severely pruned back over the last several generations in reaction against the increasing visibility of homosexuality. setting up that status quo discussed in the above addition.

    the idea that emotional intimacy between men is de facto kind of gay is a relatively modern product of homophobia. which served to increase male emotional dependency on female romantic partners, even as the modern convenience age cut down on the traditionally high level of practical dependency.

    like, the idea that Man Is Stoic isn't new, but the That's Gay reaction to being close with male friends is a late 20th century phenomenon. it's abnormal. it's reactionary. it's modern.

    Sorry for the long quote, but it's important to get the whole context. I'm really, really glad I never bought into that notion. I think this whole concept of being close with male friends as being "gay" is on the way out. Almost all of the younger people (20 and under, especially elementary and middle school kids) I see have no problem with being emotionally close to their friends.

    8 votes
  5. spilk
    Link

    We are failing young men because we don’t teach them how to express their emotions. We just tell them to man up and then we let them get their lessons in manhood from toxic podcasts. And these young men then feel isolated from themselves and society, and they find community and comfort in all the wrong places.
    Dr. Robby, season one episode eleven of ‘The Pitt’

    6 votes