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?
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.
> 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.
I really appreciate your perspectives on this. This is possibly the most important conversation of the current era and, like you've expressed, we've barely begun to have it.
The part that strikes me the most is the idea that women aren't ready to accept new gender norms among men. We're definitely in a transition era where expectations are out of whack. I do think a lot of women want an unrealistic blend of traditional masculinity with just the right types and amounts of femininity. And they are not finding it very often.
The trend is obvious in Millennials and then it absolutely skyrockets among Gen Z. More than a quarter of Gen Z women are rejecting traditional straightness in one capacity or another. I imagine many more have perspectives that are far more open than the traditional norm, even if doesn't change how they identify. I think that these women are capable of accepting a new form of masculinity in their partners. I think they are 10 steps ahead and they create a huge opportunity for men to embrace their gender in different ways without being ostracized. In fact, I think men will be rewarded, and the allure of those rewards will accelerate male rejection of traditional masculinity.
Not to get too personal, but in my hyper-progressive bubble of NYC, I see this exact dynamic playing out amongst my younger friends in their late 20's to late 30's. And they aren't even Gen Z. I like to think it's a preview of the large trends to come.
I 100% agree things are getting better and only getting better. It's just a very slow change, because I think those young people have to grapple with the people who are raising them and who they respect.
But - I will say in terms of sexuality among women - it's not all rainbows (ha). The majority of bisexual women I know would not date bisexual men, and they make it known. The "gap" in progressivism exists there too, just much less. Meaning, a lot of bisexual women are willing to accept all kinds of women and have a self-expression of wide variety, but many still look for what they deem to be a traditional, heterosexual man (when they are dating men).
It's complicated and then that really gets into a more intersectional issue because the elephant in the room is there's many strings connecting sexuality to masculinity. I think, in general, there's less genderized implications for behavior for women who are bisexual than there are for men who are bisexual. Being a bisexual man just comes with much more assumptions and baggage about identity in terms of masculinity/femininity that I don't really see for bisexuality in women. You can sort of see this in statistics, where bisexual women self-identify significantly more than bisexual men.
But bright side: this is improving, too. I see a lot less men hiding their bisexuality these days than I saw 10 years ago.
> 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.
When you say “women” here, do you mean yourself? Do you mean the women you have interacted with in the past? Do you mean all women, everywhere? How do you know how they feel about this?
This is all purely anecdotal as I've noted at the beginning, because there's no studies on this or anyone looking into this at all.
I don't mean myself, I mean the heterosexual women and men I know. I'm gay, almost all my friends are women and it's just what I've observed.
And, to be clear, I'm not blaming women. Because relationships, too, are a performance.
This part is really important:
> 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
It's not just men who lose respect when masculinity isn't performed to a high enough standard, women associated with them lose respect too. Women have a lot to deal with, it's unreasonable for them to also take on additional emotional burden when they already have to manage the appearance of their relationship to outsiders.
As for how I know how they "feel" - well, I don't. But I see their actions and what they choose to tell me. From what I've seen, it's extremely risky for heterosexual men to be vulnerable in their relationships. The odds are incredibly high that will come back to bite them, often immediately, sometimes much later. And, women seem very hesitant to talk about any perceived feminine traits in the men they date. Typically, they do the opposite, almost talk them up. I think there's some perception management going on.
>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.
Are you under some weird belief that women who fought for progressive female empowerment did not face pushback from men AND women who wanted them to "stay in their place"?
Getting pushback from men and women while trying to be progressive isn't some special thing that affects only men. It's the damn default to any progression.
Women worked for decades to get passed it. They had to convince enough men to vote to give them the vote remember. They had to get laws passed so they could own a fucking credit card. Despite sitting politicians openly mocking women fighting for their rights, to this day, women were able to build spaces that helped women. Women were able to make support groups and businesses and all these things to try and be positive influences. Women are still not past the pushback for wanting to be seen as equals.
>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.
Absolutely not. If your friends/family/etc can't handle you not being a toxic shithead of a man, you should push back. Is that not part of being a man? IMO that's part of being a good human. A space that makes jokes and mockery of women is not a safe space for good men.
So women fought adversity and built all this pro-women social infrastructure to be inter-supporting and improve the lives of women. What have men done with their systemic adversity?
Well, young men have decided what they want to do is follow andrew tate, and ghouls like the "Fit and fresh" podcast on twitch, which spends hours every day espousing hatred towards all women. Young men are openly advocating for burning down society and replacing it with one where they are guaranteed sex. Young men are shooting up their schools because they couldn't get laid. Young men are rediscovering fucking phrenology to find a reason they aren't getting laid.
Why are young men so absurdly hung up on sex? Why is not getting laid in high school a psyche breaking experience for men?
> Getting pushback from men and women while trying to be progressive isn't some special thing that affects only men. It's the damn default to any progression
I absolutely agree, but I think this is unique in the sense that progressive men often don't get support from progressive women. But progressiveness has been focused on progression for women, so often progression for men is viewed as strange, distasteful, un-man-like, etc.
> Absolutely not. If your friends/family/etc can't handle you not being a toxic shithead of a man, you should push back. Is that not part of being a man? IMO that's part of being a good human. A space that makes jokes and mockery of women is not a safe space for good men.
To be clear, I'm not talking about being a shithead here. These men I'm referring to are the good ones. The ones you'd see on liberal college campuses.
They are progressive, but progressive for a man. They still perform masculinity nearly constantly, and drop only the most convenient and easy to digest hints of progressiveness when needed. They might, say, talk about how poorly show X has aged. They won't talk about their feelings, their depression, their desire for a fresh self expression, etc.
> Well, young men have decided what they want to do is follow andrew tate, and ghouls like the "Fit and fresh" podcast on twitch, which spends hours every day espousing hatred towards all women.
Once again, I agree, but these are not the men I'm referring to.
> Why are young men so absurdly hung up on sex? Why is not getting laid in high school a psyche breaking experience for men?
I can answer this one: it's because heterosexual men's self identity relies on sexual prowess. From a young age, boys are told they are sexual deviants. They can hardly exist around girls without overly-sexualized connotation from adults. Sexual behavior is not just excused, it's expected.
A successful man is one who has the ability to get sex. Look at any media, and I really mean any. Who has the most power? Who has the most money? Who has the most confidence? Is it the man who has sex, or the virgin loser? This reinforces the message that without their sexuality, men are nothing. They will be lonely, poor, with no future.
People sometimes miss this key part of sexual objectification. When we make women sex objects, we make men oglers and sex-doers. Sex is often perceived as something men DO to women - not something two people engage in together. It's both subtly, and blatantly, reinforced in movies, TV, and music. The most successful rappers brag about their women. The most successful men have trophies. The most loser men in movies are ugly and awkward.
For these men, a loss of sex translates to a loss of life. They have no future. Of course it's all perception, and their perspective is incorrect. But we need to understand WHY they have this perception if we want to deconstruct it and remove it.
>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,
I'm sorry, this is total BS. Sure, you can move to a big US city and paint your nails and not have knuckle-dragging men harassing you about it like back in the rural areas, but you're not going to get much, if any, romantic interest from the "progressive" heterosexual women there. They'll treat you like a gay man: they'll be friendly with you and that's it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that banning circumcision wasn't among the first things you said indicates that your movement is doomed to fail to meaningfully show men that you did something for THEM.
I think this is a good idea too on grounds of bodily autonomy. Really there's a lot of places you can start, but I'm not convinced circumcision is one of the larger issues (although it is an issue).
From a physical trauma point of view, I'm not sure. I'm not educated enough on how the brain/body interprets this stuff. Intuitively, I would imagine they are just too young to remember anything.
But from a social perspective I think it matters, because of the message. I mean, it's a blatant violation of bodily autonomy done purely for sexual cosmetics. I don't think that sends a good message to boys about them and their body. It's hard to convince them there's more to them than sex when their own parents prioritized their sexual attractiveness right out of the womb. I think young boys already face a lot of sexualized pressure - they're essentially told that they are, or will become, sex-crazed monsters and that's their duty/destiny. I think circumcision without consent plays into that.
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?