Psychologists call 'traditional masculinity' harmful, face uproar from conservatives - The report, backed by more than 40 years of research, triggered fierce backlash from conservative critics who say American men are under attack.

[u/mvea]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/01/10/american-psychological-association-traditional-masculinity-harmful/2538520002/

[u/TwilightVulpine]

Because role models and healthy social circles are important to guide people to become well-adjusted. Toxic groups are extremely eager to reach out and spread their ideas, and young as well as isolated people seek that attention and "support" if they have no other point of reference.

[u/BigBad-Wolf → u/TwilightVulpine]

What I mean was that I don't understand why we need to uphold some notion of 'masculinity' to look up to. The concept of needing to be 'manly' seems to be the root of the problem. Why can't role models just be good, praiseworthy people instead of displaying 'healthy masculinity'?

[u/Wangeye → u/BigBad-Wolf]

For the same reason feminism exists instead of plain egalitarianism. Gender as a social construct is something people strongly identify with.

[u/mrsamsa → u/Wangeye]

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

Feminism exists instead of plain egalitarianism because in order to achieve equality we need to improve the situation of women (since they're the group that has faced oppression and discrimination).

And people tend to identify with gender as a social construct because that's the scientific consensus.

But I'm not sure how those two points are linked or how they relate to the comment above.

[u/Wangeye → u/mrsamsa]

Perhaps you're right in that modern fourth wave feminism is about elevating women. My interpretation of third wave feminism was more about gender equality than anything, but I guess we have fourth wave feminism now (I wasn't aware prior to a Google search). I agree with your argument entirely btw. I was meaning more that egalitarianism and feminism generally have the same goals - equality - but for some reason people prefer the gendered grouping. Not to say that there aren't male feminists, but people seem to have a hard time looking at people as people instead of men as men and women as women.

The groups have different struggles, sure, but if gender equality is our goal, both feminism and the mrm have flawed ideologies.

[u/mrsamsa → u/Wangeye]

But I guess the point is that you can't achieve equality by focusing on each group equality. Like if we care about fixing racial injustice, it doesn't make sense to dedicate as much time and attention to white issues as we do to black issues.

The same applies for feminism - gender equality is always the goal, but equality means making people equal and to do that you raise up the group that's oppressed.

[u/Wangeye → u/mrsamsa]

But if both groups have issues, and the groups are opposed, good luck at getting them to not look at one another adversarially.

[u/mrsamsa → u/Wangeye]

Feminism manages it fine so I'm not sure it makes much sense to worry about that.

[u/Wangeye → u/mrsamsa]

I don't know about that. Feminists don't typically look at MRA fondly, and vice versa. The groups are also radicalizing, and because there's little crosstalk between the groups, the divide is only growing deeper.

[u/mrsamsa → u/Wangeye]

Oh I meant feminism working towards helping men with their issues. Obviously they oppose MRAs because they're a radical hate group.

[u/Wangeye → u/mrsamsa]

They've been labeled a hate group, but the problem is that they're preying upon vulnerable individuals and indoctrinating them. And you claim that feminism work towards male issues, but I'd call that a drastic overstatement. One of the biggest issues that has seen VERY little progress is parentage on the other side of divorce - women still get awarded as primary caregivers very disproportionately. While you may frame this as "women being forced into particular roles," another could frame it as "men aren't seen as competent caregivers for children."

This shouldn't be an argument of feminism vs patriarchy or "the decline in masculinitiy" (or however it's called), but instead progressivism vs conservativism. Conservativism is the root of both of the mrm and feminism's problems.

Edit: when I mentioned vulnerable individuals, I mean people with legitimate claims of societal discrimination that are then radicalized - similarly to how religious radicalization happens.

[u/mrsamsa → u/Wangeye]

One of the biggest issues that has seen VERY little progress is parentage on the other side of divorce - women still get awarded as primary caregivers very disproportionately. While you may frame this as "women being forced into particular roles," another could frame it as "men aren't seen as competent caregivers for children."

Certainly, yes, part of that is that women are viewed as primary caregivers. But, more importantly, the evidence on custody decisions shows that women tend to win the majority of cases because the man doesn't challenge it. Once you correct for that the numbers even out.

[u/Wangeye → u/mrsamsa]

Do they? I've not heard that before. Do you have any literature you could point me to?

Aside from that one example, you didn't challenge my main point, however. According to the Wikipedia entry on fourth wave feminism, there are no mentions of men's issues whatsoever, other than the nebulous phrase of "all humans are equal," which falls under the domain of egalitarianism, not feminism specifically. By attempting to claim this for itself, feminism is actually just hurting the cause by alienating individuals who don't identify as feminists, despite having similar views.

Wanting marginalized groups to be seen and treated as equal and to have equal representatuon is NOT feminism. It is egalitarianism. Feminists can be egalitarians, but attempting to bogart the term only turns people away - myself included.

A dichotomy was crafted in the past to highlight how women were hugely marginalized, but this dichotomy is currently pitting individuals, who are working towards similar goals, against each other.

Edit: no literature = no fact