5 ms·

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 m

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.
- lasfter 5y ago
  In fact, capitalism is the cause of that culture. People (men and women) bemoan being "unproductive", dread it, and apologize for it, because modern society bombards you with conflations of productivity and self-worth. This thinking is clearly wrong. We all have inherent value. Thankfully that has begun to change. If you believe women do not feel that way, perhaps it is because of feminism's roots in socialism. Certainly feminism does not say much about the value of unproductive men.
  - LogonType10 5y ago
    Capitalism invented the birth control pill and as a consequence the labor supply doubled, making men and women into fungible economic units. Feminists who worked to elevate human dignity are laudable, but unfortunately there were more entrenched interests at work.
- akdas 5y ago
  Nope. Feminism is about valuing people as people, regardless of what gender roles tell us about how to judge them. What you're talking about is a gender role, which is explicitly what feminism is against.
  - LogonType10 5y ago
    Men certainly aren't valued for being masculine, but what are they valued for, beyond what they can provide to other people? Nothing. Feminism took away the roles but didn't replace it with anything useful for men and valuable to others.
    - akdas 5y ago
      In a world without gender roles, men (and women and non-binary folks) would be valued just for being human. That is, everyone has value, even if they don't provide "value" (which is subjective and changing anyway) to others.
    - JasonCannon 5y ago
      What do you think feminism has taken away from men?
      - Jensson 5y ago
        Male spaces. The freedom to vent about male issues. Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women! And so on. But when men tries to get a place in female spaces they just say "go make your own, don't depend on women for everything!", as if they let men make their own spaces... Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so? And lastly they are practicing a lot of toxic masculinity. If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!". Those are examples of toxic masculinity, they fail to acknowledge that there are actually a lot of weak men out there who would benefit greatly from having greater access to these things. But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine. "But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side. How can that be taken as anything but toxic masculinity? If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.
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

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.
lasfter 5y ago
In fact, capitalism is the cause of that culture. People (men and women) bemoan being "unproductive", dread it, and apologize for it, because modern society bombards you with conflations of productivity and self-worth. This thinking is clearly wrong. We all have inherent value. Thankfully that has begun to change. If you believe women do not feel that way, perhaps it is because of feminism's roots in socialism. Certainly feminism does not say much about the value of unproductive men.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  Capitalism invented the birth control pill and as a consequence the labor supply doubled, making men and women into fungible economic units. Feminists who worked to elevate human dignity are laudable, but unfortunately there were more entrenched interests at work.
akdas 5y ago
Nope. Feminism is about valuing people as people, regardless of what gender roles tell us about how to judge them. What you're talking about is a gender role, which is explicitly what feminism is against.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  Men certainly aren't valued for being masculine, but what are they valued for, beyond what they can provide to other people? Nothing. Feminism took away the roles but didn't replace it with anything useful for men and valuable to others.
  - akdas 5y ago
    In a world without gender roles, men (and women and non-binary folks) would be valued just for being human. That is, everyone has value, even if they don't provide "value" (which is subjective and changing anyway) to others.
  - JasonCannon 5y ago
    What do you think feminism has taken away from men?
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Male spaces. The freedom to vent about male issues. Feminism goes out of their way to cancel male spaces while building up female spaces. Video games made by men for men? Bad, needs to include women! And so on. But when men tries to get a place in female spaces they just say "go make your own, don't depend on women for everything!", as if they let men make their own spaces... Feminism also started shaming men who complain about women. Women are still allowed to complain freely about men. Don't they understand how damaging this is for men's mental health that they aren't allowed to let out steam while women are free to do so? And lastly they are practicing a lot of toxic masculinity. If I bring up male issues as I did here, feminists will come and say things like "Are you so weak that you need to complain and let out steam just to manage your day? Grow up!", or "Why do you need your own space, can't you handle women around you? Don't be a child, just learn how to socialize and all your issues are solved!". Those are examples of toxic masculinity, they fail to acknowledge that there are actually a lot of weak men out there who would benefit greatly from having greater access to these things. But instead they just say that men have to be stoic or they aren't welcome in feminist society. And I bet this post will get such toxic masculinity responses from feminists who argue that men just have to be more stoic and everything will be fine. "But feminists says men should cry more!", they say that, but they don't mean it. If a man cries such that it inconveniences a woman, guess what? It is the man who is bad. The woman complaining about the main crying is obviously correct, the man should have been stronger, but now he is so weak that it burdens the woman and that is bad. "But you can't expect a person to handle too much emotional labor!", well, the thing is, I've never seen a situation where a woman complained about a man crying and feminists didn't took her side. How can that be taken as anything but toxic masculinity? If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.

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