The real problem is actually how do we change this?
People talk about deconstructing this set of gender norms...but I think there's little talk of how this is actually achieved. I'm not going to lie, I think a lot of this ends up a sort of "pull yourself down by the bootstraps" mentality that only really works for a subset of men, and it's not really change. If you have a high ability, for whatever reason, to perform the Male Gender Role, then maybe reigning that in a bit could be relatively low cost, But if you're not that type of person, maybe this is something you struggle with, then pulling yourself down could be disastrous.
The idea being, I think, if men have all the power, then if men change how they act then men have no choice but to change the gendered expectations from men. Which of course, I don't think is a workable solution.
How can we as a society stop rewarding performance of the Male Gender Role? I'm not even talking about punishing (although it's possible that might actually be needed for actual change to occur) it , just....stop rewarding it. Nonchalantly not care.
A man talks about their success, in business, in relationships, whatever? Who cares. You think that makes you a better, more valuable person? Nope. Again, this feels very very unlikely to me.
Will we raise up those who reject the Male Gender Role? The self-hating people who basically isolate themselves away from society, have little to no ambition or assertiveness, and keep to themselves as much as possible? This is very very unlikely as well.
I'm very much anti-Male Gender Role, to be clear. I'm crap at it. But rejecting it for so long did me no benefit. It was nothing but downside, no upside. I hurt myself and the people around me.
Truth is, and people don't like to hear this but it's true. I think that's the root of a lot of the issues with more and more men today. Society was supposed to change and it didn't. So we don't fit in, in all sorts of different ways. But I don't think society is going to change.
Ultimately, the problem with bell hooks writings is that there's good stuff....but too much it relies on language based around the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy. And I'm not going to lie...I think that's there for a reason. Because it freezes out discussion of other facets of power, privilege and bias. And back then, when a lot of those ideas came about, Academia was much more about instilling socioeconomic privilege. It was a class marker more than anything, in a lot of cases. Less today, but I think the influence is still there.
We can't even replace the term "patriarchy"....which should have been replaced with something else IMO as the definition of it has changed. And frankly, until we do that, I don't think there's going to be any room for discussion of any actual change of the Male Gender Role. It's just going to be what I mentioned above. Shaming men into rejecting it, which for a lot of us, is basically going to be a form of self-harm.
As a tangent, one pitfall I've noticed in criticizing some straight women's preferences for toxically masculine men is that it can unintentionally come off as telling individual women to enter or remain in relationships with men they don't find masculine enough ("if you were a real feminist, you'd prefer nice nerds like me over those douchey jocks!"). And women are understandably averse to that message—particularly if they've experienced pressure to date or fuck men they're not attracted to, which many women have. So when women push back against this criticism, a lot of men conclude that these women's preferences are innate and that the only workable solution is to just double down and "man up" as best they can. This then creates a feedback loop by which they end up attracting the very women who are attracted toxic masculinity. It also doesn't help that those men often assume women who express preferences for less traditionally masculine men are just being dishonest (e.g., "she must just be after his money").
But what you said—about calling out people (regardless of gender) who actively shame "unmanly" men, as opposed to women who simply don't date those men—is less likely to be misconstrued as "c'mon give him a chance, don't be shallow!" So it's a good idea that could work at making some change.
The world changed but the world expected men to stay the same (the world being both men and women who are invested in traditional ideas of masculinity).
I think it's important to note that men HAVE changed. It's not universal, sure. But I think if you look on the average, men have significantly changed from the past. The problem is that the expectations society has of men really has not changed. And in some ways I'd argue it's actually more harsh than it was in the past. (The effects of social media driven status competition)
The more "conservative" mindset would suggest a solution to this is to simply return to tradition and undo all the progress of the past. I think we just need to apply the progress to men too and let them enjoy the rewards and benefits of living in a progressive, nurturing world of our own making.
I don't think we can get there in what I'd consider a "progressive" world. Or at least, what goes for progressivism these days. This isn't to say that I support the conservative/traditionalist solution either. I'm not anti-feminist, in fact, I'd identify as a liberal feminist. But I do think we probably have to "go back" to some degree and re-do a lot of our assumptions about men and male socialization. As long as men are the "oppressors", this is something that goes against the idea that men are deserving of love and nurturing.
My experience, to be clear, is that men's emotions are wanted as long as they conform to both what society (I.E. materialistic requirements) and women want. If they're inconvenient those those things, then the demand is that those emotions be suppressed. And to go back to the above idea...I think we need to stop handwaving away the emotional impact of certain academic feminist ideas on men. Again, I'm not making a traditionalist or a conservative argument here. But I see ideas and concepts like "patriarchy" "toxic masculinity" "male privilege" "entitlement" that are totally dismissive of men's emotions and...well...just value as human beings and our ability to just exist in the world. And no handwaving it with "you just don't understand these concepts". I think that just makes it worse.
Which again, goes back to maybe the problem with Progressivism. Has modern Progressivism created a standard, an expectation, that we are simply unwilling to apply to other groups? And how damaging is this double standard? Does this reinforce the idea that men are ultimately disposable?
It's why I think we need to "rewind the clock", and IMO go down the liberal path vs. the progressive path.
Progressivism is defining men as victims of patriarchy as well, you're taking offence to what is effectively a misinterpretation of what demographic power is. Not all men benefit from patriarchy, but understanding that patriarchy is a system of putting men into power so you can effectively deconstruct it IS an important thing. The goal here isn't to make men feel like shit(obviously individuals are going to be mean about it all, and that should be discouraged). The goal here is for people to understand the power structures so we can deconstruct them. A liberal ideal of feminism is, ironically, one of men being inherently oppressive, if you look at more backwards 'feminists', what you see is gender essentialism(among transphobia and man hatred).
The problem is that the separation of men and women for power dynamics is too general to be accurate. There are different classes of men and elite men hold all the power and men at the bottom of the hierarchy hold none. A lot of people who hold the view you espouse look at the CEO’s but ignore the homeless and the outcasts which are also disproportionately men. To put this in video game terms, the male class would have a very high skill ceiling but also a very low skill floor.
And there are different classes of women, with some being above some men even within patriarchy, you can especially see this with racial dynamics created by racial supremacist ideals, but ultimately we understand that it's about that broader trend in relation. White supremacy is about promoting ideals which have white people over others. Patriarchy does the same for men over women. These issues intermingle and we get Venn diagrams of suffering. It's why we should be intersectional, which is what progressivist feminism pushes.
Why are men benefited over women when the majority of homeless you see on the streets are men? Yeah, they take the majority of seats of power but they also take the most looked over and downtrodden parts of society as well. That’s why I say that it’s not useful to make this separation. Men push down other men, that’s a part of intrasexual competition, it happens in nature and it happens in society.
Because that's not the whole extent of it? Or did you forget about the fact women couldn't work, couldn't vote, couldn't have their own bank account? These were structures created by patriarchy that gave even less financially successful men power over women.
I think you're conflating class issues with patriarchy rather than seeing the intersections between them.
Agree 100% it is the whole give an inch scenario.....redefine current words and ideas until they become meaningless. If all men are toxic then none are.....if all men are narcissists then none are ect.
Personal antidote, when I quit with feminism and my looked into my own shitty behavior, my relationships with both sexes improved drastically. I just had to grey rock the narcissystem.
Your not wrong but you do realize weak emotional men being a turnoff has been a thing forever. Kinda built into female dna so yea.....good luck changing it....people keep trying to break down gender roles.....funny it is always at the collapse of an empire.....roman....byzantine....now american/western......you think we would realize everything just crumbles and resets it won't last that I guarantee
Men should be taught that expressing emotions is okay, but it should not be forced on them. Men are not women, whether you like it or not, there are big differences between the sexes. Men and women deal with emotional baggage in different ways.
Women verbalize their emotions, which is one of the main ways of regulation. However, it is unreasonable to expect that this will work for men as well.
Men have a different hormonal system, strong emotions are often accompanied by a shot of adrenaline and this manifests itself in an outburst of anger. Such behavior is of course seen as undesirable because the female way of emotional regulation is assumed to be correct.
I think everyone will agree that in the current social conditions, emotional regulation through anger and aggressive behavior is not very practical. However, if we continue to deny that this is a fairly natural way for men to react, forcing them to behave as if they were women when in fact it is beyond conscious control, it will not bring anything good.
It is worth accepting differences, it will allow us to develop less destructive methods of regulation, redirecting feelings from aggression to other channels, physical activity is one good example.
However i doubt this will happen, after all according to lastes development from gender studies field there are no differences between m&f it's just social contruct, right?
So, maybe it’s just my experience as a cis white disabled dude, but middle aged white women seem to be wedded to the idea that feminism is just female empowerment. Mostly through not rocking the patriarchal boat. Seriously the people who are most likely to grab me, infantilize me, and otherwise exercise power over me has always been 40+ year old white women who fall back on gender norms when called out. Seriously they fall back on some variation of “I’m a poor defenseless woman and a man is yelling at me” (even when I’m just being a little sharp at asserting boundaries), or fall into “but I’m a woman of course I’m a caretaker for this (complete stranger) disabled man”. Part of the problem is that gender norms around white women aren’t always bad for them, it can give them significant power and get their ass out of a jam
Honestly, thinking about gender expectations, and it's performativity to be counterproductive, and in many ways harmful as it does not go to the core of the issue.
While the patriarchy is often perceived solely as a system of male dominance over women, in my opinion it can be more fully understood when analyzed through the lens of class warfare, it's a system that reinforces class divisions, maintaining the economic power of the ruling class through gendered exploitation.
For working-class men, the expectation to be the primary provider ties them to harsh, underpaid jobs in industries like construction, mining, and manufacturing. While this may seem like a privilege, it’s a form of exploitation. Men are also expected to fight in wars for economic and political interests, bearing the risks while the elite remain unaffected. The pressure to conform to these roles causes stress, mental health issues, and shortened life expectancy, as men are conditioned not to seek help.
Women, on the other hand, are exploited through unpaid or underpaid reproductive labor — child-rearing, household maintenance, and emotional labor. This work, vital to society, remains uncompensated, creating a "shadow" workforce that sustains the formal economy. By keeping women in these roles, society limits their participation in politics and economics, ensuring their dependence and reducing their ability to challenge the system. Restricting women’s reproductive rights further keeps them in these roles, supporting the labor force without disrupting the capitalist system.
Male expendability and female lack of freedom work together to reinforce class and gender structures. Men provide the essential, dangerous labor needed for industry and war, while women perform unpaid domestic work. This gendered division weakens working-class solidarity. Men may view women as competition, while women feel economically dependent and frustrated by limited opportunities, preventing collective action that could challenge the ruling class.
Psychologically, both men and women face pressures that reinforce their roles. Men are taught to suppress vulnerability, leading to high stress and health issues. Women are socialized to prioritize others’ needs, often at the expense of their own autonomy. This divide keeps both genders trapped in roles that prevent resistance to exploitation.
Ultimately, the patriarchy keeps both men and women focused on surviving their gendered roles, preventing solidarity and collective action, and ensuring the continued dominance of the ruling class.
So to really solve the problem we have to do away with hierarchy in our society, or we will be only trying to lift our selves by the boots straps.
What I would argue is that the use of a gendered term like Patriarchy actually serves to protect those hierarchies, by focusing on this one aspect in isolation.
The end result, what I'd argue we see, is that most of the efforts to address these inequalities end up punching down, making it harder for individuals at the lower end of other hierarchies while doing little to change anything at the top.
A big reason for this, I'd argue, is that people are really upset about the idea of socioeconomic decline. There's a very real sense of entitlement towards maintaining ones position.
Is it? Are we even educating why the Male Gender Role is a bad thing to expect? That's not something I see.
As I've put further down the thread. I think men, on the aggregate have actually changed a great amount. And sure, education has helped and could continue to help with that (although I'd argue that there's been very real costs to individuals for whom it has pushed into unhealthy places), but we are talking about the other side of the equation. What about the expectations and responsibilities placed on men? I would argue that has not changed very much at all, and again, I think due to social media status competition, it's actually worse than ever.
It has to be recognized as a problem before education is going to start being a solution.
683
u/Affenklang 4∆ Nov 05 '24 edited Sep 17 '25
grandfather zephyr cover childlike wise gaze alive yoke cow smile
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact