4 ms·

I don't think the quote in my article suggests you need to want those spaces. But I do. Cotten does. And it's hard for us to find those spaces.

by akdas 5y ago

emacsen 5y ago
I (a cis-gendered man) find it interesting how when sensitivity comes up, or the desire for spaces to talk about vulnerability comes up, certain people (often men) treat the suggestion as if it's a personal affront to them. It's similar to how some people react to homosexuality as if it reflects on them. "What, there are people who are attracted to the same gender?! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT ME!?!" There are men who do like such spaces for men, but I've also seen how they can be challenging to maintain. There are a lot of feelings that come up for men, and a lot of toxic thought patterns and habits, as well as patterns that can come up around shaming others who may not feel the same way as the group. I find also that directly talking can be useful and powerful, but so can community building alongside talking, such as participating in a shared activity- building, gaming, etc. There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.
- apsurd 5y ago
  > There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value. love this <3
- LogonType10 5y ago
  >for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value This is the void feminism left us with: men who provide nothing have no value and are at best invisible and at worst trash you avert your eyes from. It's not obvious that they're wrong.
  - scotu 5y ago
    I'm not sure you got your idea of what feminism is from the correct source, because "men who provide nothing have no value" to me this seems like the patriarchy.
    - LogonType10 5y ago
      Isn't patriarchy the idea that men are in charge and superior to women?
      - Zababa 5y ago
        That's a motte and bailey. The motte is "a few men have a disproportionate amount of power in society", the bailey is "all men have more privilege than women". It's important to be clear about what's meant by patriatchy because people often use different definitions, sometimes in the same conversation.
      - scotu 5y ago
        disclaimer, I'm not an expert or a scholar, I just saw the effect that our society has and I'm trying to understand. Things are complicated but: men are in charge "correct" definition (I think), superior to women is just the justification it gives for the subjugation of women. The thing is, not all men are in charge (nor they can be), and all men are the same, so the hierarchy cannot be 2 levels: are you not interested in the ball games? down a notch; don't care to prevaricate anybody for your success? down a notch; wanna talk about feelings? and so on. (oh, bonus: like male supremacy, white supremacy is the justification for keeping non-whites down a few notches). I'd say it's crystal clear that the patriarchy generates a system of oppression, and men are oppressed in it as well (strict definition of what makes you a real, worthy man) (amounts of oppression may vary, men on average experience less oppression than women, ask your doctor..ahem).
      - monocasa 5y ago
        The idea is that the people who are in charge are men, not that men in the general case are in charge.
  - 5y ago
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  This notion is offensive to some men, including myself, because along all this seemingly good natured talk often comes a negation of how the majority of men actually feel and express their feelings and a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic. And there is some hypocrisy in claiming to be welcoming and accepting of men while insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way. In my experience, the majority of men behave naturally in a traditionally masculine way and are comfortable expressing themselves this way. It doesn't mean they are any less emotionally complex than women or emotionally stunted. Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for. If we're going to worry about men and their emotions then let's make sure we actually do it for the sake of men, in a way that is adapted to the way men feel and express themselves.
  - emacsen 5y ago
    You probably won't see this since it's been so long but... > a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic There's a bunch to unpack here. First, I never used any such terms. All I did was say that it's weird to me that some men react so strongly to what other men are doing, as if it offends them personally. That's actually a segue into the next part... You said that there's a redefinition or relabeling of masculine identify as toxic. I don't think it's masculine identity, but a set of behaviors and patterns. As an example, why would it bother Joe if Bob goes to a meeting where he's talking about his own feelings? Why does Joe feel personally attacked for that? And if Joe's response is "That's GIRLY!" and thus something to distanced from, again, why? Why is Joe's idea of masculinity so narrow as not to include Bob's expression. That's what toxic masculinity is, it's the idea that masculinity has to be a very narrow thing and that we (men) must perform it within very tight parameters. > insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way. Do you actually see this and have experienced it? This isn't a hyperbolic question, because it hasn't been my experience. > Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for That is also not my experience. Women can engage in the same toxic attitudes as men and perpetuate the same rigid gender roles. We see it throughout society, in all socio-economic statuses, and generally. "Boys don't cry" still exists, and "Boys will be boys" exists (though less than it did when I was a a child). We still see men valued by their economic statuses, and their ability to suppress emotion. And we still see unconventional expressions of masculinity as the butt of jokes in mainstream culture, such as Drax in the Marvel movies, Boyle in Brooklyn 99, and the entire male cast of the Big Bang Theory. Not masculine identity, but behaviors and thought patterns. I had difficulty understanding this and found the term "toxic masculinit
harpersealtako 5y ago
The big issue is that the only spaces like this are either small, private friend groups (e.g. my waterfowl hunting buddies who occasionally get their martial gripes off their chest while out in the duck blind) or public groups/businesses/organizations that inevitably are forced to integrate and become co-ed by outside pressure (defeating the whole point). I disagree with the article's claim that the thing stopping male-only support groups from existing is internal toxicity. I think that external criticism, sometimes unwarranted or malicious criticism from those who have an ideological bone to pick with men's issues or men in general, is a larger barrier.
- michaelt 5y ago
  I can see what you mean to an extent. But we men are also pretty coy about some of these things - if I'm running a men's divorce support group, but I tell everyone it's a golf club? Well of course people are going to assume it's a golf club.

I don't think the quote in my article suggests you need to want those spaces. But I do. Cotten does. And it's hard for us to find those spaces.

by akdas 5y ago

I don't think the quote in my article suggests you need to want those spaces. But I do. Cotten does. And it's hard for us to find those spaces.

emacsen 5y ago

I (a cis-gendered man) find it interesting how when sensitivity comes up, or the desire for spaces to talk about vulnerability comes up, certain people (often men) treat the suggestion as if it's a personal affront to them. It's similar to how some people react to homosexuality as if it reflects on them. "What, there are people who are attracted to the same gender?! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT ME!?!" There are men who do like such spaces for men, but I've also seen how they can be challenging to maintain. There are a lot of feelings that come up for men, and a lot of toxic thought patterns and habits, as well as patterns that can come up around shaming others who may not feel the same way as the group. I find also that directly talking can be useful and powerful, but so can community building alongside talking, such as participating in a shared activity- building, gaming, etc. There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value.

apsurd 5y ago
> There's a need for both, and most of all, for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value. love this <3
LogonType10 5y ago
>for men to feel valued just for being alive, not for any deed they perform or value they bring to others, just their intrinsic value This is the void feminism left us with: men who provide nothing have no value and are at best invisible and at worst trash you avert your eyes from. It's not obvious that they're wrong.
- scotu 5y ago
  I'm not sure you got your idea of what feminism is from the correct source, because "men who provide nothing have no value" to me this seems like the patriarchy.
  - LogonType10 5y ago
    Isn't patriarchy the idea that men are in charge and superior to women?
    - Zababa 5y ago
      That's a motte and bailey. The motte is "a few men have a disproportionate amount of power in society", the bailey is "all men have more privilege than women". It's important to be clear about what's meant by patriatchy because people often use different definitions, sometimes in the same conversation.
    - scotu 5y ago
      disclaimer, I'm not an expert or a scholar, I just saw the effect that our society has and I'm trying to understand. Things are complicated but: men are in charge "correct" definition (I think), superior to women is just the justification it gives for the subjugation of women. The thing is, not all men are in charge (nor they can be), and all men are the same, so the hierarchy cannot be 2 levels: are you not interested in the ball games? down a notch; don't care to prevaricate anybody for your success? down a notch; wanna talk about feelings? and so on. (oh, bonus: like male supremacy, white supremacy is the justification for keeping non-whites down a few notches). I'd say it's crystal clear that the patriarchy generates a system of oppression, and men are oppressed in it as well (strict definition of what makes you a real, worthy man) (amounts of oppression may vary, men on average experience less oppression than women, ask your doctor..ahem).
    - monocasa 5y ago
      The idea is that the people who are in charge are men, not that men in the general case are in charge.
- 5y ago
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
This notion is offensive to some men, including myself, because along all this seemingly good natured talk often comes a negation of how the majority of men actually feel and express their feelings and a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic. And there is some hypocrisy in claiming to be welcoming and accepting of men while insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way. In my experience, the majority of men behave naturally in a traditionally masculine way and are comfortable expressing themselves this way. It doesn't mean they are any less emotionally complex than women or emotionally stunted. Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for. If we're going to worry about men and their emotions then let's make sure we actually do it for the sake of men, in a way that is adapted to the way men feel and express themselves.
- emacsen 5y ago
  You probably won't see this since it's been so long but... > a redefinition of their masculine identity as toxic There's a bunch to unpack here. First, I never used any such terms. All I did was say that it's weird to me that some men react so strongly to what other men are doing, as if it offends them personally. That's actually a segue into the next part... You said that there's a redefinition or relabeling of masculine identify as toxic. I don't think it's masculine identity, but a set of behaviors and patterns. As an example, why would it bother Joe if Bob goes to a meeting where he's talking about his own feelings? Why does Joe feel personally attacked for that? And if Joe's response is "That's GIRLY!" and thus something to distanced from, again, why? Why is Joe's idea of masculinity so narrow as not to include Bob's expression. That's what toxic masculinity is, it's the idea that masculinity has to be a very narrow thing and that we (men) must perform it within very tight parameters. > insisting they express their emotions in a more traditionally feminine way. Do you actually see this and have experienced it? This isn't a hyperbolic question, because it hasn't been my experience. > Emotionally expressive and occasionally vulnerable men is what women have always asked for That is also not my experience. Women can engage in the same toxic attitudes as men and perpetuate the same rigid gender roles. We see it throughout society, in all socio-economic statuses, and generally. "Boys don't cry" still exists, and "Boys will be boys" exists (though less than it did when I was a a child). We still see men valued by their economic statuses, and their ability to suppress emotion. And we still see unconventional expressions of masculinity as the butt of jokes in mainstream culture, such as Drax in the Marvel movies, Boyle in Brooklyn 99, and the entire male cast of the Big Bang Theory. Not masculine identity, but behaviors and thought patterns. I had difficulty understanding this and found the term "toxic masculinit

harpersealtako 5y ago

The big issue is that the only spaces like this are either small, private friend groups (e.g. my waterfowl hunting buddies who occasionally get their martial gripes off their chest while out in the duck blind) or public groups/businesses/organizations that inevitably are forced to integrate and become co-ed by outside pressure (defeating the whole point). I disagree with the article's claim that the thing stopping male-only support groups from existing is internal toxicity. I think that external criticism, sometimes unwarranted or malicious criticism from those who have an ideological bone to pick with men's issues or men in general, is a larger barrier.

michaelt 5y ago
I can see what you mean to an extent. But we men are also pretty coy about some of these things - if I'm running a men's divorce support group, but I tell everyone it's a golf club? Well of course people are going to assume it's a golf club.