5 ms·

From my perspective as an outsider looking in (that meaning, I have no horse in heterosexual dynamics), the problem is we've had no progressive movements for me

From my perspective as an outsider looking in (that meaning, I have no horse in heterosexual dynamics), the problem is we've had no progressive movements for men. At best, men have gotten whatever crumbs have fallen through the proverbial car seat crack of the vehicle of feminism. Largely there's only a few different ways to be a successful man. Even small deviations from the norm are met with ruler whips - and I don't just mean from other men. Modern women are incredibly cruel in the way they view non-conforming men. These limitations used to be superpowers. If you could perform an adequate display of masculinity, you were granted the world. This is no longer the case, which is a good thing. But the expectation still exists and is still enforced with an iron-fist, just without the riches. I mean, most heterosexual men I've met wouldn't even dare of so much as painting their nails. Let alone opening up their mind. How can we expect these people to follow along with the train of progressivism when none of it is for them? How can we expect them to leave gender roles behind when they know, and understand, there is only failure and heartache for them if they leave theirs's behind?

mplewis 2y ago
Yeah, I feel so sorry for the men who lose their status when they leave behind patriarchy. Won't someone think of the poor men. :eyeroll:
- consteval 2y ago
  You misunderstand. This is precisely the mindset that leave these men in a difficult position. They're forced to perform an adequate display of masculinity to please individuals such as yourself, because the moment they don't they get this sort of treatment. But performing such masculinity doesn't grant them what it used to before. So, one would think they would leave it behind! But they don't, because you don't welcome it. They have nowhere to go. Certainly, other men won't take them into their communities. And women won't either, because such men are weak and not worth their breath. So where do they end up if they choose that path? So naturally they don't choose that path. The problem here is that they can't "leave behind patriarchy". That translates into dying alone still. The reality is toxic masculinity is molded not just by men, but by women. Mothers, sisters, classmates. From the moment they leave the womb, boys understand there are strict rules they must conform to. Enforcing these rules, which you're unintentionally doing with this sort of "boohoo" mentality, is part of the reason we're in the mess. Meaning, you yourself are upholding patriarchy in ways you might not understand. Part of deconstructing toxic masculinity and giving men a fighting chance in a progressive world is being open to listening to them and giving them the space for vulnerability. You can't do that when you're hell-bent on never listening. When in such a position, men and young boys are set up for failure. They can't perform to a level that is deemed sufficient for progressivism, but they also can't perform for a level that is deemed sufficient for women and other men. Only a select few, who have mastered the art of perfectly performing outward masculinity while selectively dropping little kernels of progressivism, succeed. The solution is a modern progressive movement for men, but there's huge pushback to this idea. Even the notion men don't have to conform to even surface-level gender roles, like the clothes they wear, is met with huge uproar from men and women. I mean, just ask yourself: do you think the average progressive woman would even humor dating a heterosexual man who does drag? Do you think the average progressive woman would even humor dating a heterosexual man who splits the bill? The answer is a resounding no. Whatever little bits of progressivism men have gotten are pretty much just side-effects from feminism and gay liberation. But just side-effects. Men still can't act feminine, and they certainly can't do anything that might get them perceived as gay. I mean, I find another placeholder for fa*got online just about every month. Heterosexual men are sorely lacking in progressivist movements that help them and their self-identity.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    > The solution is a modern progressive movement for men Do you have thoughts on what this should/could look like?
    - consteval 2y ago
      I think mental healthcare might be a good place to start. Campaigns specifically targeting men's mental health, particularly more "embarrassing" ones like depression and anxiety. Show men who can't bring themselves to brush their teeth, show men sitting in their car with a revolver in their hands. That's a harsh reality that is completely silent, I think. I think we need to come to terms with men being in positions of abject "weakness" - or what we currently perceive as weakness. And we do that through visibility. Through PSAs, television shows, movies. I also think clothing would be a good place to start, just because it's so immediately obvious and visible. Get protests allowing men to wear skirts at work, and make it clear they're still men. I don't think that will fix anything really, but I think it could force the issue to be looked at.
      - genewitch 2y ago
        you gotta start real young and psychiatry is a soft science and so is early-childhood studies; it makes recommendations difficult to get behind. The only way to change this is cultural, seriously. We have to start now with Millennials and zoomers, and the few gen-x that aren't calcified in their own trauma - start by making therapy better sounding. Less "tissues and issues" and more "neutral third party that will be honest about reflections on what you've said / contemplated." I hope this makes sense - right now, seeking mental health help has a stigma. It's strange to go to the equivalent of a doctor and spend 45 minutes talking. Can you trust them? How open should you be? Are they judging you, and will that color their dialogue? Seriously, how open should you be? Once we have a generation of parents that have benefited from therapy, when they see their child having an issue, they can now reach for the therapy route in addition to dr spock. Having good experiences with therapy in your formative years will make you more likely to seek similar experiences as an adult. Who knows, it's all flimsy.
      - 2y ago
- DrPimienta 2y ago
  Women have made up the majority of college graduates for the past 5 decades. And yet the majority of college scholarships are for women. If it were the other way around, you'd say this is unfair. There are job quotas for women, not men. Women make up the majority of government benefit receivers. Yes, if you aren't going to care about a disenfranchised minority, you should expect them to be angry.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    Show your work. Are those competitive scholarships? Maybe women are just out-performing men. Are those government services disproportionately aimed at women because they are caring for children? Or elderly parents? Before we start thinking of men as a "disenfranchised minority" we should be crystal clear on the facts, don't you agree?
    - DrPimienta 2y ago
      They get scholarships literally just for being women. You have Google, use it. Stop being a pathetic contrarian. You can be wrong all you want but reality still exists.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  They’re not poor, they’re dead from suicide.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  Won't someone think of the most privileged human beings to ever walk the surface of this planet (first world women)? :eyeroll:
standardUser 2y ago
Men used to have one path and it came with some near-guaranteed value and status. Now, men have to choose from two paths, and neither one has that same level of guarantee. That's a problem in an of itself because it leads to a psychology of grievance. And it's not imagined! Men do indeed have a worse deal than they used to by a ton of metrics. But once men stop crying about what was, they do have a choice. And there are new sets of problems and benefits that come with those choices. Choosing the traditional side is to pick the losing side, but that varies by geography. Not only does it still come with a lot of benefits in some places, but it's kind of the only viable option in some places. The problem is that society can no longer accommodate 80-90% of men in those situations choosing the traditional path. Maybe more like half. So we end up with a lot of losers. Sad, angry, strong, well-armed losers. But the other path IS viable. You can move to [name any big city], get an education, get a decent job, paint your nails, treat women nicely and, if you ask me, have better relationships, better sex, better lives than were ever available to most men in the past.
- consteval 2y ago
  > But the other path IS viable. You can move to [name any big city], get an education, get a decent job, paint your nails, treat women nicely and, if you ask me, have better relationships, better sex, better lives than were ever available to most men in the past. I agree this is viable, but you have to understand that for heterosexual men they face a lot of day-to-day backlashes for this. You have to understand the vast majority of women will not consider a relationship with them. And they will suffer in their career as well. Lack of masculinity, or rather perceived masculinity, in men means lack of respect across the board. Because progressivism has not focused on that, so we're still dealing with many decades old understanding of masculinity. Even extremely surface-level reimagining, such as painting nails, is fringe. And I think that really demonstrates the problem. I mean, forget emotional intelligence or vulnerability. We're battling black nail polish. We haven't even begun to take a crack at the simplest, most surface level stuff. Let alone the deeper stuff. I said this in another comment, but modern heterosexual men are in a strange position where they have to perfect the art of performing masculinity in most situations, and then leaving hints of progressivism where other's find it most convenient. Ultimately, even the most progressive woman is looking for a man who is somewhat kind and maybe he can get away with painting his nails. But he must still be masculine, he must not cry very much if ever, and he must always be a low level of emotional labor. Women want to deal with things like grappling with the shame of dating a man who paints his nails and the social repercussions of that, they don't also have the bandwidth to deal with, say, depression. That's step 100, we're still getting past step 1.

mplewis 2y ago

Yeah, I feel so sorry for the men who lose their status when they leave behind patriarchy. Won't someone think of the poor men. :eyeroll:

consteval 2y ago
You misunderstand. This is precisely the mindset that leave these men in a difficult position. They're forced to perform an adequate display of masculinity to please individuals such as yourself, because the moment they don't they get this sort of treatment. But performing such masculinity doesn't grant them what it used to before. So, one would think they would leave it behind! But they don't, because you don't welcome it. They have nowhere to go. Certainly, other men won't take them into their communities. And women won't either, because such men are weak and not worth their breath. So where do they end up if they choose that path? So naturally they don't choose that path. The problem here is that they can't "leave behind patriarchy". That translates into dying alone still. The reality is toxic masculinity is molded not just by men, but by women. Mothers, sisters, classmates. From the moment they leave the womb, boys understand there are strict rules they must conform to. Enforcing these rules, which you're unintentionally doing with this sort of "boohoo" mentality, is part of the reason we're in the mess. Meaning, you yourself are upholding patriarchy in ways you might not understand. Part of deconstructing toxic masculinity and giving men a fighting chance in a progressive world is being open to listening to them and giving them the space for vulnerability. You can't do that when you're hell-bent on never listening. When in such a position, men and young boys are set up for failure. They can't perform to a level that is deemed sufficient for progressivism, but they also can't perform for a level that is deemed sufficient for women and other men. Only a select few, who have mastered the art of perfectly performing outward masculinity while selectively dropping little kernels of progressivism, succeed. The solution is a modern progressive movement for men, but there's huge pushback to this idea. Even the notion men don't have to conform to even surface-level gender roles, like the clothes they wear, is met with huge uproar from men and women. I mean, just ask yourself: do you think the average progressive woman would even humor dating a heterosexual man who does drag? Do you think the average progressive woman would even humor dating a heterosexual man who splits the bill? The answer is a resounding no. Whatever little bits of progressivism men have gotten are pretty much just side-effects from feminism and gay liberation. But just side-effects. Men still can't act feminine, and they certainly can't do anything that might get them perceived as gay. I mean, I find another placeholder for fa*got online just about every month. Heterosexual men are sorely lacking in progressivist movements that help them and their self-identity.
- standardUser 2y ago
  > The solution is a modern progressive movement for men Do you have thoughts on what this should/could look like?
  - consteval 2y ago
    I think mental healthcare might be a good place to start. Campaigns specifically targeting men's mental health, particularly more "embarrassing" ones like depression and anxiety. Show men who can't bring themselves to brush their teeth, show men sitting in their car with a revolver in their hands. That's a harsh reality that is completely silent, I think. I think we need to come to terms with men being in positions of abject "weakness" - or what we currently perceive as weakness. And we do that through visibility. Through PSAs, television shows, movies. I also think clothing would be a good place to start, just because it's so immediately obvious and visible. Get protests allowing men to wear skirts at work, and make it clear they're still men. I don't think that will fix anything really, but I think it could force the issue to be looked at.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      you gotta start real young and psychiatry is a soft science and so is early-childhood studies; it makes recommendations difficult to get behind. The only way to change this is cultural, seriously. We have to start now with Millennials and zoomers, and the few gen-x that aren't calcified in their own trauma - start by making therapy better sounding. Less "tissues and issues" and more "neutral third party that will be honest about reflections on what you've said / contemplated." I hope this makes sense - right now, seeking mental health help has a stigma. It's strange to go to the equivalent of a doctor and spend 45 minutes talking. Can you trust them? How open should you be? Are they judging you, and will that color their dialogue? Seriously, how open should you be? Once we have a generation of parents that have benefited from therapy, when they see their child having an issue, they can now reach for the therapy route in addition to dr spock. Having good experiences with therapy in your formative years will make you more likely to seek similar experiences as an adult. Who knows, it's all flimsy.
    - 2y ago
DrPimienta 2y ago
Women have made up the majority of college graduates for the past 5 decades. And yet the majority of college scholarships are for women. If it were the other way around, you'd say this is unfair. There are job quotas for women, not men. Women make up the majority of government benefit receivers. Yes, if you aren't going to care about a disenfranchised minority, you should expect them to be angry.
- standardUser 2y ago
  Show your work. Are those competitive scholarships? Maybe women are just out-performing men. Are those government services disproportionately aimed at women because they are caring for children? Or elderly parents? Before we start thinking of men as a "disenfranchised minority" we should be crystal clear on the facts, don't you agree?
  - DrPimienta 2y ago
    They get scholarships literally just for being women. You have Google, use it. Stop being a pathetic contrarian. You can be wrong all you want but reality still exists.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
They’re not poor, they’re dead from suicide.
anonfordays 2y ago
Won't someone think of the most privileged human beings to ever walk the surface of this planet (first world women)? :eyeroll:

standardUser 2y ago

Men used to have one path and it came with some near-guaranteed value and status. Now, men have to choose from two paths, and neither one has that same level of guarantee. That's a problem in an of itself because it leads to a psychology of grievance. And it's not imagined! Men do indeed have a worse deal than they used to by a ton of metrics. But once men stop crying about what was, they do have a choice. And there are new sets of problems and benefits that come with those choices. Choosing the traditional side is to pick the losing side, but that varies by geography. Not only does it still come with a lot of benefits in some places, but it's kind of the only viable option in some places. The problem is that society can no longer accommodate 80-90% of men in those situations choosing the traditional path. Maybe more like half. So we end up with a lot of losers. Sad, angry, strong, well-armed losers. But the other path IS viable. You can move to [name any big city], get an education, get a decent job, paint your nails, treat women nicely and, if you ask me, have better relationships, better sex, better lives than were ever available to most men in the past.

consteval 2y ago
> But the other path IS viable. You can move to [name any big city], get an education, get a decent job, paint your nails, treat women nicely and, if you ask me, have better relationships, better sex, better lives than were ever available to most men in the past. I agree this is viable, but you have to understand that for heterosexual men they face a lot of day-to-day backlashes for this. You have to understand the vast majority of women will not consider a relationship with them. And they will suffer in their career as well. Lack of masculinity, or rather perceived masculinity, in men means lack of respect across the board. Because progressivism has not focused on that, so we're still dealing with many decades old understanding of masculinity. Even extremely surface-level reimagining, such as painting nails, is fringe. And I think that really demonstrates the problem. I mean, forget emotional intelligence or vulnerability. We're battling black nail polish. We haven't even begun to take a crack at the simplest, most surface level stuff. Let alone the deeper stuff. I said this in another comment, but modern heterosexual men are in a strange position where they have to perfect the art of performing masculinity in most situations, and then leaving hints of progressivism where other's find it most convenient. Ultimately, even the most progressive woman is looking for a man who is somewhat kind and maybe he can get away with painting his nails. But he must still be masculine, he must not cry very much if ever, and he must always be a low level of emotional labor. Women want to deal with things like grappling with the shame of dating a man who paints his nails and the social repercussions of that, they don't also have the bandwidth to deal with, say, depression. That's step 100, we're still getting past step 1.