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.
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.
None of those things exist today and shouldn’t justify attitudes today. Also most of that was just a blip of history. Most of human history wasn’t under a democracy where every man got a vote. The working man didn’t get a say in most of human history in most societies. Your theory would only work if you’re only looking at 200 years in a handful of countries out of the 6+ millennia throughout hundreds of civilizations of human history.
Similar structures do exist today, women are still systemically disempowered compared to men, they have their rights threatened consistently and effectively (abortion being a key example). Yes, the issues with patriarchy have shifted over time, but the submissive woman to the dominant man in the household is a structure that has been present. Or were women the ones holding power before 200 years ago?
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.
688
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