3 ms·

This is not a zero sum game. We can acknowledge that there has been regression or no change in some areas without any bearing on the negative outcomes of over c

This is not a zero sum game. We can acknowledge that there has been regression or no change in some areas without any bearing on the negative outcomes of over corrective attitudes towards men. Food for thought: the types of men who are likely to rely on macho masculinity and the abuse of power dynamics are the least likely to be phased by an undercurrent of anti-male sentiment. Sensitive men, the men who are not propagating these patterns are the men who take such sentiment seriously, and are more likely to be harmed/held back by it. The issue is not “men”. The issue is bad behavior. But as long as the framing is men vs. women, people who are not exhibiting the targeted behavior get caught up in the broader backlash, leading to a very hostile situation that does little to address the real issues in a sustainable way. It may be that the pendulum swing was necessary for a time, and indeed there have been times in our history where this was obvious, e.g. the women’s suffrage movement. And there are still clear wage gaps and the issue of bodily autonomy among others that remain critical to solve. But those can be addressed without perpetuating a culture that demonizes boys for being born male. This is a shift in thinking that we must make.

jncfhnb 3y ago
I don’t agree. “Sensitive men” are acutely aware of the behavior of “toxic masculinity men”. It’s not a behavior that exclusively affects women. It affects everyone. I can’t say I’ve ever felt threatened by this concept as a guy. Semantics get messy and people can use terms however they want but the basic to me feels obvious and just. It is no surprise that such men don’t have their emotional needs met. But there are layers upon layers of issues that create this circumstance.
- haswell 3y ago
  > I don’t agree. “Sensitive men” are acutely aware of the behavior of “toxic masculinity men”. It’s not a behavior that exclusively affects women. It affects everyone. I agree with this, and I'm not sure on which point you disagree. My point was that the broader cultural anti-male rhetoric that arose as an (understandable) response to toxic masculinity tends to have the least impact on the worst perpetrators, and the most negative impact on those who are not the problem to begin with. And to your point, there are many layers involved here, and reducing this to just a spectrum of masculinity is not sufficient on its own. We need broader thinking.
  - ziml77 3y ago
    The combination of the depictions of nerds vs jocks in 80s and 90s media plus this huge overcorrection on toxic masculinity really fucked with me hard. I thought that nerd and jock was a hard line, that I had to actively avoid anything sports related to not be one of the stupid jocks who were all woman objectifiers. I was also convinced that women wanted nothing to do with sex, hated getting hit on, and would consider any physical contact without explicit verbal approval to be assault. Now I know that's all a load of crap. Nerds can and should play sports for the health and social benefits, women absolutely have sexual desires, and all physical interactions with someone are contextual. It just would have been great to have had that realization way sooner than my late 20s! There must be a middle-ground somewhere that discourages being disgusting to women while also not making men feel like they are inherently disgusting. Something that lets a wide spectrum of both masculinity and femininity be considered valid and acceptable.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      The ideas you’re proposing are the mainstream norms. I’m inclined to think the internet has played a large part in it. The social dialogue is simply much better. Earlier movies were overly simplistic and dumb. I think Slasher films are the poster child of this. They began as this thing for the geekier men, with their idolization of the pure final girl in the 80s and 90s. But they all kind of portrayed this same dumb world view as lampooned in Cabin in the Woods. It mostly ended with Scream, which featured characters openly reflecting on the nature of such films and how they translated to pop culture and a final girl that fucked, despite still being kind and pure and unpunished. But it still kept this cultural narrative of the dorky guy protagonist. The newer scream (number 6, which is unironically fantastic imo; best since the og) features a jock named chad who is not an obtuse asshole, horny girls that are not defined by being horny, and weird people with weird passions that are shown as sociable and well liked. This is good. But this highlights the larger point. Being a jock was not the problem, it was being an asshole. It’s good that we recognize that jocks are not necessarily assholes. But assholes still thrive and environments where physical strength assertions to social power are probably the worst of them. at the end of the day there is going to be a social hierarchy. If this shifts to favor intellect, academic achievement, and social skills; how do you support the dumber bigger kids who will geeked compelled to physically assert themselves into positions of social power? Very difficult. And it’s not like there aren’t a plethora of dumber, weaker kids who lack that option and also need support. “Who will weep for the bully” is not easy to answer because being an asshole is often a survival strategy…
space_fountain 3y ago
I agree with much of this especially the lack of zero sum games, but a problem is this conversation takes oxogen away from bigger issues. We’re literally commenting on an article talking about how we still treat boys and men like they don’t or shouldn’t have emotions and thus don’t need emotional support and all the top comments are about how attacking toxic masculinity has gone too far? Like the problem here is seeing some sort of bio-essentialism or just a form of masculinity that is unhelpful, and unhealthy in very much the kinda way that some feminist thinkers believed for a long time. Yes, I very much don’t like rad fems for a lot of reasons, but for every one of them hurting society there are 10 women and men afraid society is going soft. Do you know what the most popular source of news in this country is? Have you seen polling.
- haswell 3y ago
  > a problem is this conversation takes oxogen away from bigger issues Is it? This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion to me, and isn't this just another way to frame "zero sum" thinking? i.e. there's only so much oxygen, and it's better used over there on that other issue instead of here on this issue, with the implication being that using oxygen here detracts from other things over there. Another way to frame this is that those other issues aren't seeing the desired progress for the same reasons these negative outcomes are starting to emerge: current strategy/tactics are not working effectively, and/or we aren't looking at a big enough picture. If this is true, conversations like this are necessary to address both, and to course correct as needed. A conversation about one should happen in the context of the bigger picture, and becomes a conversation about the other, raising awareness and moving the dialogue forward across both fronts. I should be clear that I'm not taking a hard stance about this, but challenging the idea that we should steer clear of certain lines of discussion. I don't think we make progress until we expand our thinking to include an honest evaluation of actions taken and their effects (desired or otherwise), and narrowing the field of "acceptable" exploration seems like it can only be counterproductive. > Do you know what the most popular source of news in this country is? Have you seen polling. Not recently. What do you feel that these pieces of information indicate?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago

jncfhnb 3y ago

I don’t agree. “Sensitive men” are acutely aware of the behavior of “toxic masculinity men”. It’s not a behavior that exclusively affects women. It affects everyone. I can’t say I’ve ever felt threatened by this concept as a guy. Semantics get messy and people can use terms however they want but the basic to me feels obvious and just. It is no surprise that such men don’t have their emotional needs met. But there are layers upon layers of issues that create this circumstance.

haswell 3y ago
> I don’t agree. “Sensitive men” are acutely aware of the behavior of “toxic masculinity men”. It’s not a behavior that exclusively affects women. It affects everyone. I agree with this, and I'm not sure on which point you disagree. My point was that the broader cultural anti-male rhetoric that arose as an (understandable) response to toxic masculinity tends to have the least impact on the worst perpetrators, and the most negative impact on those who are not the problem to begin with. And to your point, there are many layers involved here, and reducing this to just a spectrum of masculinity is not sufficient on its own. We need broader thinking.
- ziml77 3y ago
  The combination of the depictions of nerds vs jocks in 80s and 90s media plus this huge overcorrection on toxic masculinity really fucked with me hard. I thought that nerd and jock was a hard line, that I had to actively avoid anything sports related to not be one of the stupid jocks who were all woman objectifiers. I was also convinced that women wanted nothing to do with sex, hated getting hit on, and would consider any physical contact without explicit verbal approval to be assault. Now I know that's all a load of crap. Nerds can and should play sports for the health and social benefits, women absolutely have sexual desires, and all physical interactions with someone are contextual. It just would have been great to have had that realization way sooner than my late 20s! There must be a middle-ground somewhere that discourages being disgusting to women while also not making men feel like they are inherently disgusting. Something that lets a wide spectrum of both masculinity and femininity be considered valid and acceptable.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    The ideas you’re proposing are the mainstream norms. I’m inclined to think the internet has played a large part in it. The social dialogue is simply much better. Earlier movies were overly simplistic and dumb. I think Slasher films are the poster child of this. They began as this thing for the geekier men, with their idolization of the pure final girl in the 80s and 90s. But they all kind of portrayed this same dumb world view as lampooned in Cabin in the Woods. It mostly ended with Scream, which featured characters openly reflecting on the nature of such films and how they translated to pop culture and a final girl that fucked, despite still being kind and pure and unpunished. But it still kept this cultural narrative of the dorky guy protagonist. The newer scream (number 6, which is unironically fantastic imo; best since the og) features a jock named chad who is not an obtuse asshole, horny girls that are not defined by being horny, and weird people with weird passions that are shown as sociable and well liked. This is good. But this highlights the larger point. Being a jock was not the problem, it was being an asshole. It’s good that we recognize that jocks are not necessarily assholes. But assholes still thrive and environments where physical strength assertions to social power are probably the worst of them. at the end of the day there is going to be a social hierarchy. If this shifts to favor intellect, academic achievement, and social skills; how do you support the dumber bigger kids who will geeked compelled to physically assert themselves into positions of social power? Very difficult. And it’s not like there aren’t a plethora of dumber, weaker kids who lack that option and also need support. “Who will weep for the bully” is not easy to answer because being an asshole is often a survival strategy…

space_fountain 3y ago

I agree with much of this especially the lack of zero sum games, but a problem is this conversation takes oxogen away from bigger issues. We’re literally commenting on an article talking about how we still treat boys and men like they don’t or shouldn’t have emotions and thus don’t need emotional support and all the top comments are about how attacking toxic masculinity has gone too far? Like the problem here is seeing some sort of bio-essentialism or just a form of masculinity that is unhelpful, and unhealthy in very much the kinda way that some feminist thinkers believed for a long time. Yes, I very much don’t like rad fems for a lot of reasons, but for every one of them hurting society there are 10 women and men afraid society is going soft. Do you know what the most popular source of news in this country is? Have you seen polling.

haswell 3y ago
> a problem is this conversation takes oxogen away from bigger issues Is it? This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion to me, and isn't this just another way to frame "zero sum" thinking? i.e. there's only so much oxygen, and it's better used over there on that other issue instead of here on this issue, with the implication being that using oxygen here detracts from other things over there. Another way to frame this is that those other issues aren't seeing the desired progress for the same reasons these negative outcomes are starting to emerge: current strategy/tactics are not working effectively, and/or we aren't looking at a big enough picture. If this is true, conversations like this are necessary to address both, and to course correct as needed. A conversation about one should happen in the context of the bigger picture, and becomes a conversation about the other, raising awareness and moving the dialogue forward across both fronts. I should be clear that I'm not taking a hard stance about this, but challenging the idea that we should steer clear of certain lines of discussion. I don't think we make progress until we expand our thinking to include an honest evaluation of actions taken and their effects (desired or otherwise), and narrowing the field of "acceptable" exploration seems like it can only be counterproductive. > Do you know what the most popular source of news in this country is? Have you seen polling. Not recently. What do you feel that these pieces of information indicate?
- mrguyorama 3y ago