Hmm..Let's see. No one can deny the harmful impact of patriarchy on females by promoting hostility towards them, discrediting their intelligence, and invalidating their rights. However, it's not because phallocentrism indoctrinated men to be assertive and ego-centrist and women to submit , and never question, male assertiveness, that it means men are inherently rotten at their core and can't unlearn those toxic traits in the upcoming generations. Integrating helpful, supportive men in emancipating females, and fighting their objectification and degradation, is a rudimentary step in initiating humane dialogues. Furthermore, this will help clarify misconceptions involving toxic masculinity, and provide a decent alternative with more positive models. Finally, recognizing the positive potential of masculinity, male leadership and creativity alongside their female counterparts will lift any exclusive gendered views on traits, and gifts advancing civilization.
Is it the Marxists or the Capitalists? Come on guys, you need to get your story straight. I don't think you're cynical guys trying to preserve your power. I think you're just bad at arguing.
They are indeed cynical guys trying to preserve their power. I can tell that unapologetically. I'd like to have your comment on my reframing to your argument. Could I possibly have forgotten something ?
To me masculinity consists of the following: -Believing in something higher than yourself, (example; God) -Accepting the fact that you have responsibilities -Engaging in physical activity -Bravery -Keeping a level head -Living in a state of growth rather than a state of fear -Not Chasing clout on social media -Having a sense of humor -Forgiving and respecting other people -Abstaining from gossip -Assertiveness -Having a sense of honor
@Meshuga I also wonder why no one brought up fatherhood, since it is a facet of masculinity. Since the topic is masculinity, how about men clarify what fatherhood means to them?
Some of this, kind of, maybe? I wouldn't word it like this, mostly because I try not to underestimate the human capacity for denial, and also to account for sheer ignorance. Plenty of people can deny, plenty do. I also don't understand patriarchy, frankly. The way I've heard it described, it sounds as if a lot of Bronze Age kings got together and said, "Know what we should do? We should systematically oppress women!!!" "Yes! Then we can keep all the power for ourselves!" And then it was just passed down, father to son for every generation after, like some kind of open secret. I don't think that happened, and I'm certainly not part of any such club, but what I do think is true is that some cultural norms work toward female disadvantage. I think there is and is going to be a lot of room for argument about what is fair toward women, which differences we see manifesting between genders are a result of cultural influence and what (if any) are born out of natural gendered preferences rooted in biology, and what if anything needs to be done about them. I'm open to those conversations. But I do want those conversations to be conducted in good faith, not that this thread is giving me any optimism about the likelihood of that outcome. I absolutely know first hand some hardcore phallocentrists who indoctrinated men to dominate and women to be fearful and submit. Mark Driscoll, who I mentioned in my first post, is one, and he isn't even the worst. However, he was counter-cultural in the Christian sphere, and practicing Christians are officially a minority in the US so he's a small part of the national story. Not that only Christians are bad actors, I guess, but I do think this overt, aggressive misogyny is more of a minority than you do and, I'll quickly amend, I know more practicing Christians who at least try to practice something closer to egalitarianism than not. I could go into a long digression about how the religion itself was actually deeply progressive on gender issues in the 1st and 2nd centuries, and it's ironic how it has been cherry picked and used by demagogues to oppress... but I won't. I do think men can be rehabilitated, though, so that's accurate. It's a bit far to say men need to "emancipate" females. You're not slaves, you never were. At least, not in this culture. I don't think anyone should be objectified unless I suppose if they want to be objectified, but that's getting into my personal crap that isn't necessary right now. I think there's enough equality that we can have humane dialogues right now. You and I are doing just fine, far as I can tell. I would love a model of masculinity that isn't immediately assumed to be toxic, though. I'd like to be a man without that being presumed to be a bad thing. And I do think there's a lot more traits out there that have been gendered that should be normal for both... but some are ones men are going to tend to have more than women, and vice versa. And I think that's okay. I'm impressed that you feel as supported as it seems you do, given what my argument actually is, and I thought I phrased it fairly simply. I feel unwelcome as a man in modern society. I feel like I am appreciated as a person, but my maleness is regarded as a detriment to my value. If I feel like this, I'm sure other men do as well, and these young men are going to look for acceptance wherever they can find it.
Post modernism, radical egalitarianism, marxism, - an alphabet soup of academic theories are indeed 'used' by globalist corporations the break down national resistance -it is sometimes called 'rainbow capitalism' or if you're not thin skinned, 'Globalhomo capitalism' if you knew who actually funded communists then you would reconsider your statement. Do you know who funded the Bolshevik revolution? It's also not an accident that the Frankfort School - which was the root of much of this - has it's orgins in what is today the EU financial capital. Who funds all these movements in America? Middle class mormons? What 'power' do I have or say a male blue collar construction worker? You make sweeping unfounded unproven statements like this. How do the lower and under,class and now middle class males have 'power' compared to be How did a male serf have 'privilege' and power of Elenor of Aquitaine?
Thank you this is perhaps the most humorous thing I have read all day, though it well illustrates the habit of academics to have complete disregard for human suffering in order to support their theories, in fact often they would rather have people die than admit their theories are wrong. Its why marxists can disregard millions of people starving to death when rather than admit their system isn't working. Did you cut and paste this from your useless gender studies degree thesis? You know what I think? I think you need to work in a coal mine, 19th century style and get back to me. Your 'theories' are ridiculous abstractions that have no basis in the real world an in fact are in defiance of it. If you really think that it is 'privilege' I am sure you won't mind doing it for a few years yourself for say, 20.00 US a day. If you opened a history book you realize that men didn't have the 'right' to vote 'for granted' or even education and in hunter gather societies there was a simple male -female division of labor based on ability - a difference in abilities which you refuse to say exists. Men 'on average' are better at math, have better spatial vision, are more rational and creative - that's why 90% of the world's relevant of inventions were created by men, for example.
Cynical males love this argument a lot, speaking of inventors of the 19th century to superficially argue men are inherently intellectually superior. But how about we explore the whole cultural setting of that era ? the ways access to education had been more facilitated to men exclusively, and how some places had laws overtly forbidding women from attending universities. Let's also not deny that many families prioritized the son's education to the detriment of the daughter's. Female education in the 19th century had been seen as an accessory, in other words only secondary. Most girls didn't pursue education to the fullest. Since their families and cultural settings make marriage and kids the easiest avenue while overwhelming ambition and careers with obstacles men are exempted from, or face at lesser magnitudes. But you stating those words give me some peace, now know my grounded look on you was correct. Remember that women worked at factories with low incomes and in exploitative conditions. Once the occasion for independence arose, they didn't miss it. If you believe females weren't prepared to face harsh working conditions necessary for financial independence then my example certainly disproves it. While men were away at war, women gained more unprecedented access to formerly difficult paths, some even worked in mines. Search for welsh mining women.
This is precisely what happened, it wouldn't be called cultural heritage if not transmitted from generation to generation. Like matriarchal cultures existing nowadays, also are a heritage transmitted from one generation to the next. I firmly believe we have way more common traits than differences. And if the phallocentric cultural settings, making some traits more prominent and gendered than others, are altered then differences will pale compared to similarities we share. After all, we both are human. It was never overtly stated that women were 'slaves' in the very literal sense. But it didn't mean they weren't considered second-class citizens, and were exempted from many domains they had the potential to succeed in, Solely for the reason circumstances made it quite difficult for them. Have you ever wondered why being compared to a woman is used to insult men ? If feminity never possessed a degrading connotation in the collective belief, then where does that come from ?
If that's the case, then how about you explain why the P industry relies so much on misogyny and men's desire for dominance ? both sexually and non-sexually ? If we really reached a safe zone where women are equally respected, and most toxic male traits cured, then can you explain the massive appeal of female degradation in P?
To furthermore confirm your point, wearing makeup hadn't been exclusively feminine until the 19th century. In ancient civilization, it was more appropriate for men to wear makeup. Even in the modern era, some remote cultures still approve of men wearing makeup, some others see no wrong with women participating in hunting.
Sorry, I don't want to be an ally to people who hate me. Also as of right now I am content with where I am at.
Speaking for me, I am still optimistic about 'the' dialogue. But for this dialogue to be conducted in good faith, it needs to be done with honest answers. Some people try to confuse others by stating contradictions every now and then, leaving interlocutors struggling with uncoherent ideas.
That's fair you probably wouldn't care to hear my story anyway. I can be positive if you can get to know me. But you probably wouldn't care to hear it anyway. So I won't bother telling. This post is not for sympathy, I honestly don't need it. But all I have to say is my ways of thinking are motivated by bad experiences, so don't think I am trying to hold on to a false sense of power, you can't hold any if you never had any to begin with.
I would have cared, if said story didn't make you assume we'd hate any man, regardless of his ability to empathize and help. I already acknowledge the potential men would have had, without toxic cultural ideals about masculinity implanted into their brains. As previously stated, my problem is with cultural male ideals, contributing to women's detriment. I know for sure no positive man would support any male ideals, in case they shackle women and girls while simultaneously benefiting men.
Alright, You seem reasonable so I am willing to lay it out, I will be willing to tell it if you are willing to listen. The story will be personal so I'd perfer to do it over in private messaging.
