4 ms·

I agree with Esther Perel's thinking[1] that the next century is going to involve a broadening on what society deems a positive life is for straight, cis men. I

I agree with Esther Perel's thinking[1] that the next century is going to involve a broadening on what society deems a positive life is for straight, cis men. In the same way that we consider it acceptable for women to express themselves or live differently than the gender roles of the past, I think we'll start to do the same for men. I already see this with my millennial or genZ peers. It's not uncommon to read comments on Hacker News or twitter from men feeling that they seen as less valid for doing less traditional activities[2][3] (eg: caring for children, prioritizing their careers less, being less traditionally forward, etc.) and I think society is going to need to change to acknowledge this better for both men and women. [1] https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog/details/1594/esther-perel-on-the-lives-of-men https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog/details/1594/est... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21775631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21775631 [3] https://twitter.com/SpaceCptZemo/status/1215034934319964160 https://twitter.com/SpaceCptZemo/status/1215034934319964160 EDIT: Am I allowed to interpret downvotes as "nah i dont want it that way the world is Malthusian"? Nothing would make me happier.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
baddox 7y ago
I admit that I haven't read much on the subject, but it feels to me that, at least in American society, it has long been considered more acceptable for men to have various social arrangements than for women. My impression is that it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working and unmarried well past the average marriage age than for a woman. Compare the words "bachelor" and "spinster."
- danbolt 7y ago
  That's very true. We definitely are more lenient towards people in different ways depending on their gender, and there are a lot of relaxed social expectations that men have compared to women. Still though, I think there are dimensions of this where this is less true, perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. I wish I had better words to explain it.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit around complaining about "toxic masculinity" and how they're mistreated by men. >The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mywittyname 7y ago
      > Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are designed to feel like sweat pants and a thick cotton button up shirt. Women have it pretty bad when it comes to clothes shopping. Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores. It's not like that for women. Women come in many different shapes. So you look and see that a clothing store has twice as many jeans for women as they do for men, but don't realize that all of those are split over four or five styles that are mutually exclusive: most women can only fit into one, maybe two styles. But for men, most of us can wear slim fit, regular fit, bootcut, etc jeans. This same phenomenon extends to stores as well. Lots of women's clothing brands specialize in a certain shape of woman.
- bitL 7y ago
  I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    >many men can have children in their 70s Just because you can have an erection and produce sperm at 70 doesn't mean you can have children and if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions. Having kids after 45 as a male carries risks for the children as well.
    - cmdshiftf4 7y ago
      >if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome Please cite something for this assertion or delete it, as it is not in line with anything I've read on the matter. Increased paternal age carries some potential for increased side effects for their children, but it is absolutely nowhere near the risks involved in a delayed pregnancy for women [0]. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers-more-likely-to-have-babies-with-health-problems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers...
    - blacksmith_tb 7y ago
      Though there's some biological risk[1], it seems obvious the real problem is that you'll be dead before your kid is in college (and I am skeptical about how involved you could be in parenting before that...) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
    - ewindal 7y ago
      > they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions An order of magnitude higher chance of genetic defects isn’t very significant when the initial risk is less than .1%
- scarmig 7y ago
  > it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working That last word is the key point. Men receive less judgment for remaining single than women, but they also receive more judgment if they don't work. That's a reason we're much more willing to code an unemployed or underemployed man as a "loser" than we are to do so a woman.
Camillo 7y ago
> It's not uncommon to read comments on Hacker News or twitter from men feeling that they seen as less valid for doing less traditional activities[2][3] (eg: caring for children, prioritizing their careers less, being less traditionally forward, etc.) and I think society is going to need to change to acknowledge this better for both men and women. That is an interesting angle. What do you think is going to change, and what is going to cause it to change?
- standardUser 7y ago
  I think it's obvious this is already changing rapidly. Maybe certain antiquated standards of masculinity still reign supreme in rural Indiana (or wherever), but in major metros there is an constantly expanding spectrum within which gender can be expressed without drawing criticism. It may be unusual for a man to stay home and take care of the children while his wife works. But the idea that I could ever stigmatize or criticism someone for this life arrangement is ridiculous to me. I'm sure that 40 years ago most men would only be able to respond with criticism. But these days that kind of reaction is laughable. And the men who have that kind of reaction would be viewed as backwards simpletons.
- danbolt 7y ago
  I think a growing cohort of men will start to live their lives and express themselves in ways that are fulfilling to them and know it’s worthwhile despite society’s expectations. This might involve being more “feminine” in a lot of ways or place less importance on their careers or seeming successful by traditionally masculine traits. I think men will recognize this in each other and support one another when their peers or women won’t necessarily like the untraditional new lives they’re leading. This might be like women having careers in the 1960s or LGBT people being out in society. It can be untraditional, but ultimately a fine and healthy way to live your life. I think social media or online communities will help with this too. In terms of what is causing it to change, I think is deindustrialization and the nature of a capitalist, individualist society. If your peers or culture are asking you to be “masculine” as a hunter gatherer, Breton-Woods-era American tradesman, or Jay Gatsby-type, you’re going to feel out of place if you don’t feel like that’s how you want to live your life.
ewindal 7y ago
Men are too dependent on women and work for validation for «society» to allow a broader expression of the male gender role. Those who can’t get fullfilment through their job won’t get it any easier, and I don’t see women’s tastes in men changing much.
- danbolt 7y ago
  Women’s gender roles in society has changed a lot over the past century. Do you think the same could happen to men ever?
  - llampx 7y ago
    It hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile I feel like as a man I'm expected to be sensitive yet rugged, muscular yet not aggressive, strong but not a gym rat, have good skin but not use skin care products.
  - ewindal 7y ago
    Of course it can, but I believe the things men derive intrinsic satisfaction from are much more slow to change.
TheBobinator 7y ago
Few things to be said here as I think this comment is unbelievably misguided. Much like how first wave feminism was a response to advanced in pressure vessels producing distilled alchohols, and second wave was a response to the obsolescance of muscle in manufacturing, so too is 3rd wave feminism the response to the key technologies of social media and contraceptives. We've replaced the concept of a couple investing in eachother from a young age to build a nuclear family with college, debt and a status symbol competition; Social media and dating apps have cast relationships and sex as something that you purchase like a product, and they advertise to women that they too are a product, and that they are more valuable than 90% of men. When you remove the risk of STD's and pregnancy, advertise to women that the ability to act like a masterbation toy improves their "social worth" with no consequences. It's a disgusting trade but it has prooven unbelievably effective. The business model of OKCupid is to dissaude their audience from viewing relationships as investments so they instead invest time in OKCupid. Many women have shut themselves off from men approaching them entirely until they can fully vet them online first. The flip side of this is the "top dogs" become unbelievably pessimistic about, and often abusive of, women. Today a newborn male child has a 1 in 2 shot at procreating (US Census data for Males never married, no children; look at the growth rate); that's 60 to 100 million men, TODAY, who are in search of a purpose in their lives that won't be fulfilled by a family. Ever. Replacement fertility is 2.1 births per women; we're at 1.7. When the USSR Collapsed they were down to 1.3. The dislocation this has produced is absolutely massive and is what is behind birth rate declines in western countries. What nobody wants to talk about is how much of a powderkeg that will become when those men reach the end of their economic and reproductive utility and determine, rightfully so, they have been been screwed over. The reason you get the CEO of cloudflare blanning white supremacist material isn't because he REALLY hates those kinds of people; it's because the population is becoming a powderkeg and group identity politics is a VERY bad way for that to go. Every revolution has been predicated upon the concept of society losing it's concept of self-respect and dignity, and so devoid of those concepts, unable to engineer them into the solutions they impliment. After the french killed the aristocracy, they engaged in the reign of terror. No amount of engaging in psychological warfare exercises selling information pollution such as the concept of a "CISGender" or taking down websites is going to change billions of years of evolution or the consequences of bad policy. I'm all for studies on sexuality but they have to be realistic; it is, like psychology, a complex topic. If you like malthusianism, the approach of allowing the next wave of feminism take it's toll is about as tactful of a way of going about doing it as using a AAMRAM to kill a baby. The kind of generational complex trauma and resulting child maldevelopment this is going to create is not what suites any kind of functioning society well; all you have to do is look at the chicago ghetto's and the never-ending cycle of violence to understand that. The Chinese with their 1 child policy is far wiser for contrast. Think about it; you allow nuclear families and hey they really invest a heck of a lot into that one kid with the government stepping in to ensure it works out. As far as the roles go in relationships, the correct way to look at it is, the two people in the relationship make the decisions, and if you have something to say about it, go to hell.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

baddox 7y ago

I admit that I haven't read much on the subject, but it feels to me that, at least in American society, it has long been considered more acceptable for men to have various social arrangements than for women. My impression is that it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working and unmarried well past the average marriage age than for a woman. Compare the words "bachelor" and "spinster."

danbolt 7y ago
That's very true. We definitely are more lenient towards people in different ways depending on their gender, and there are a lot of relaxed social expectations that men have compared to women. Still though, I think there are dimensions of this where this is less true, perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. I wish I had better words to explain it.
- magduf 7y ago
  >perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit around complaining about "toxic masculinity" and how they're mistreated by men. >The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    > Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are designed to feel like sweat pants and a thick cotton button up shirt. Women have it pretty bad when it comes to clothes shopping. Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores. It's not like that for women. Women come in many different shapes. So you look and see that a clothing store has twice as many jeans for women as they do for men, but don't realize that all of those are split over four or five styles that are mutually exclusive: most women can only fit into one, maybe two styles. But for men, most of us can wear slim fit, regular fit, bootcut, etc jeans. This same phenomenon extends to stores as well. Lots of women's clothing brands specialize in a certain shape of woman.
bitL 7y ago
I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  >many men can have children in their 70s Just because you can have an erection and produce sperm at 70 doesn't mean you can have children and if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions. Having kids after 45 as a male carries risks for the children as well.
  - cmdshiftf4 7y ago
    >if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome Please cite something for this assertion or delete it, as it is not in line with anything I've read on the matter. Increased paternal age carries some potential for increased side effects for their children, but it is absolutely nowhere near the risks involved in a delayed pregnancy for women [0]. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers-more-likely-to-have-babies-with-health-problems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers...
  - blacksmith_tb 7y ago
    Though there's some biological risk[1], it seems obvious the real problem is that you'll be dead before your kid is in college (and I am skeptical about how involved you could be in parenting before that...) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
  - ewindal 7y ago
    > they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions An order of magnitude higher chance of genetic defects isn’t very significant when the initial risk is less than .1%
scarmig 7y ago
> it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working That last word is the key point. Men receive less judgment for remaining single than women, but they also receive more judgment if they don't work. That's a reason we're much more willing to code an unemployed or underemployed man as a "loser" than we are to do so a woman.

Camillo 7y ago

> It's not uncommon to read comments on Hacker News or twitter from men feeling that they seen as less valid for doing less traditional activities[2][3] (eg: caring for children, prioritizing their careers less, being less traditionally forward, etc.) and I think society is going to need to change to acknowledge this better for both men and women. That is an interesting angle. What do you think is going to change, and what is going to cause it to change?

standardUser 7y ago
I think it's obvious this is already changing rapidly. Maybe certain antiquated standards of masculinity still reign supreme in rural Indiana (or wherever), but in major metros there is an constantly expanding spectrum within which gender can be expressed without drawing criticism. It may be unusual for a man to stay home and take care of the children while his wife works. But the idea that I could ever stigmatize or criticism someone for this life arrangement is ridiculous to me. I'm sure that 40 years ago most men would only be able to respond with criticism. But these days that kind of reaction is laughable. And the men who have that kind of reaction would be viewed as backwards simpletons.
danbolt 7y ago
I think a growing cohort of men will start to live their lives and express themselves in ways that are fulfilling to them and know it’s worthwhile despite society’s expectations. This might involve being more “feminine” in a lot of ways or place less importance on their careers or seeming successful by traditionally masculine traits. I think men will recognize this in each other and support one another when their peers or women won’t necessarily like the untraditional new lives they’re leading. This might be like women having careers in the 1960s or LGBT people being out in society. It can be untraditional, but ultimately a fine and healthy way to live your life. I think social media or online communities will help with this too. In terms of what is causing it to change, I think is deindustrialization and the nature of a capitalist, individualist society. If your peers or culture are asking you to be “masculine” as a hunter gatherer, Breton-Woods-era American tradesman, or Jay Gatsby-type, you’re going to feel out of place if you don’t feel like that’s how you want to live your life.

ewindal 7y ago

Men are too dependent on women and work for validation for «society» to allow a broader expression of the male gender role. Those who can’t get fullfilment through their job won’t get it any easier, and I don’t see women’s tastes in men changing much.

danbolt 7y ago
Women’s gender roles in society has changed a lot over the past century. Do you think the same could happen to men ever?
- llampx 7y ago
  It hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile I feel like as a man I'm expected to be sensitive yet rugged, muscular yet not aggressive, strong but not a gym rat, have good skin but not use skin care products.
- ewindal 7y ago
  Of course it can, but I believe the things men derive intrinsic satisfaction from are much more slow to change.

TheBobinator 7y ago

Few things to be said here as I think this comment is unbelievably misguided. Much like how first wave feminism was a response to advanced in pressure vessels producing distilled alchohols, and second wave was a response to the obsolescance of muscle in manufacturing, so too is 3rd wave feminism the response to the key technologies of social media and contraceptives. We've replaced the concept of a couple investing in eachother from a young age to build a nuclear family with college, debt and a status symbol competition; Social media and dating apps have cast relationships and sex as something that you purchase like a product, and they advertise to women that they too are a product, and that they are more valuable than 90% of men. When you remove the risk of STD's and pregnancy, advertise to women that the ability to act like a masterbation toy improves their "social worth" with no consequences. It's a disgusting trade but it has prooven unbelievably effective. The business model of OKCupid is to dissaude their audience from viewing relationships as investments so they instead invest time in OKCupid. Many women have shut themselves off from men approaching them entirely until they can fully vet them online first. The flip side of this is the "top dogs" become unbelievably pessimistic about, and often abusive of, women. Today a newborn male child has a 1 in 2 shot at procreating (US Census data for Males never married, no children; look at the growth rate); that's 60 to 100 million men, TODAY, who are in search of a purpose in their lives that won't be fulfilled by a family. Ever. Replacement fertility is 2.1 births per women; we're at 1.7. When the USSR Collapsed they were down to 1.3. The dislocation this has produced is absolutely massive and is what is behind birth rate declines in western countries. What nobody wants to talk about is how much of a powderkeg that will become when those men reach the end of their economic and reproductive utility and determine, rightfully so, they have been been screwed over. The reason you get the CEO of cloudflare blanning white supremacist material isn't because he REALLY hates those kinds of people; it's because the population is becoming a powderkeg and group identity politics is a VERY bad way for that to go. Every revolution has been predicated upon the concept of society losing it's concept of self-respect and dignity, and so devoid of those concepts, unable to engineer them into the solutions they impliment. After the french killed the aristocracy, they engaged in the reign of terror. No amount of engaging in psychological warfare exercises selling information pollution such as the concept of a "CISGender" or taking down websites is going to change billions of years of evolution or the consequences of bad policy. I'm all for studies on sexuality but they have to be realistic; it is, like psychology, a complex topic. If you like malthusianism, the approach of allowing the next wave of feminism take it's toll is about as tactful of a way of going about doing it as using a AAMRAM to kill a baby. The kind of generational complex trauma and resulting child maldevelopment this is going to create is not what suites any kind of functioning society well; all you have to do is look at the chicago ghetto's and the never-ending cycle of violence to understand that. The Chinese with their 1 child policy is far wiser for contrast. Think about it; you allow nuclear families and hey they really invest a heck of a lot into that one kid with the government stepping in to ensure it works out. As far as the roles go in relationships, the correct way to look at it is, the two people in the relationship make the decisions, and if you have something to say about it, go to hell.