Your take on "toxic masculinity?"

I essentially think that masculinity becomes toxic when you stop minding your own business

i.e. working out is not toxic. Taking pictures of other people in the gym to shit on them is. Taking videos of yourself and being upset that other people walk through them is.

And, to be honest, I think that toxic masculinity is a problem, but I also think that women perpetuate it just as much as men do.

I think that in comparison to what I would envision as toxic masculinity, no I do not exhibit any of those character traits. That's not to say that I don't have some of those deep routed "masculinity" elements that I have grown up in the culture of as part of who I am.

I think that being someone who has for much of his adult life worked with children and with teenagers/young adults (mostly female) who are hard to serve and at risk, I am keenly aware at all times that I am likely one of the only positive male role models they currently have in their life. I take that very seriously and it has definitely made me be a softer, gentler person than I might have been in my young adult life.

I was never some douche-canoe or anything like that, but being really aware that you have 12-20 year old girls and young women looking to you as their male role model? You approach everything so much differently when that is your lens.

randy_123r posted...

I think some think to mistake that all masculinity is toxic, or that there is a attack on masculinity.

I think thats just a thing the internet does. In real life Ive never seen anyone attack someone for expressing their masculinity. I mean, how many good fathers are out there, taking responsibility protecting and raising their children.

The real world celebrates that. Even if certain parts of the internet use it as a Segway to bring up and rant about nonsense

The internet focuses on examples of masculinity as displayed by certain people and labels it toxic masculinity, but those people are, you know, fucking losers and bums, and should not be used as an example for what men as a whole aspire to be. Nobody actually wants to be Andrew Tate except for teenagers.

Masculinity is about putting your best foot forward, taking responsibility for your actions, and being kind to other people, thereby setting a good example for your kids and your peers. Donald Trump is not a "masculine" person, because masculine individuals do not whine and bitch about things not going their way, nor do they pay attention to vain shit such as the amount of people who attend their rallies.

We, as a society, need to do a better job of pushing good male role models, because if we don't talk to the kids and set a good example for them...Andrew Tate will.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

The internet focuses on examples of masculinity as displayed by certain people and labels it toxic masculinity, but those people are, you know, fucking losers and bums, and should not be used as an example for what men as a whole aspire to be. Nobody actually wants to be Andrew Tate except for teenagers.

Masculinity is about putting your best foot forward, taking responsibility for your actions, and being kind to other people, thereby setting a good example for your kids and your peers. Donald Trump is not a "masculine" person, because masculine individuals do not whine and bitch about things not going their way, nor do they pay attention to vain shit such as the amount of people who attend their rallies.

We, as a society, need to do a better job of pushing good male role models, because if we don't talk to the kids and set a good example for them...Andrew Tate will.

QFT

I think it can also be as simple as avoiding the might makes right in favor of might for right.

Or basically Great Power Great Responsibility.

STEROLIZER posted...

If objectifying women is a trait of Toxic Masculinity. Is horny posting also a complimentary trait?

Can't say. Honestly it wouldn't be bad I suppose to admire women if boundaries are respected.

Sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but much like racism or bigotry in general, I feel the problem and over-correcting stems from many other people who act like:

A. Being apathetic to victims of sexual harassment or rape.

B. They are apathetic (Meaning you shouldn't involve yourself), but will stick up for a sexual predators or in the case of 2016, allowing one the White House.

And it's not just about White Knighting either. Just as toxic masculinity can harm men too (We even have that thread announcing that a man beat his 2 year old son cause he seemed gay), but so does victim blaming.

Saying that a woman shouldn't be too sexy cause her attacker couldn't help it would suggest that no man can control such urges. People insist that it's a rape victim lashing out that hurts our rep, but how about guys who dismiss the self control of plenty of men just to defend the worst example of man?

Antiyonder posted...

I think it can also be as simple as avoiding the might makes right in favor of might for right.

Or basically Great Power Great Responsibility.

Everything past the quoted portion lost me bro. But I understand this part

STEROLIZER posted...

Everything past the quoted portion lost me bro. But I understand this part

I thought you might have been hinting some concern that admiring women can be seen as toxic and basically I was trying to explain why there is often more caution in that area.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

I essentially think that masculinity becomes toxic when you stop minding your own business

i.e. working out is not toxic. Taking pictures of other people in the gym to shit on them is. Taking videos of yourself and being upset that other people walk through them is.

I think to expand on this a lil: Working out because you wanna take care of yourself and improve yourself isn't really masculine or feminine in the modern day. Working out because you wanna take on traditionally manly hobbies like construction or look like Superman would be more masculine, but absolutely not problematic. Working out because that's what you're "expected" to do even though it's making you miserable would be toxic masculinity.

The body shaming you've mentioned isn't inherently toxic masculinity, although shaming a man for not being buff absolutely would be. Taking videos of yourself and moaning at people for daring to interrupt your shoot isn't toxic masculinity either, although both these examples are being dicks.

The why is far more important than the what.

And, to be honest, I think that toxic masculinity is a problem, but I also think that women perpetuate it just as much as men do.

Yes, it's perpetuated by people that think men have to adhere to certain stereotypes or they can't be considered men.

I'd say yes. I feel like being tall, physically strong with high testosterone and basically just wearing my work pants (navy blue cintas slacks) and a dark grey/black shirt (hides any kind of stains) with my work boots makes society hate me.

Imo i'm just a regular normal/boring guy but apparently i radiate this intense intimidating energy i've been told even though I am polite, softspoken and humble so idk or really care tbh

STEROLIZER posted...

Masculinity in general is a tool thats used for survival. In modern day society it allows for men to move up the social ladder, rise to the top of a career field, become financially stable, able to atttact a mate, able to protect ones family

Masculinity is not required for any of these things. Survival itself is not characterized by one's ability to be masculine, even in modern society.

What people don't realize that intrinsically linking these two things is itself a facet of toxic masculinity. Because what does it say of men who take a different path? Those who are content with where they're at socially, or fucked by a shitty corporate power structure that an individual alone cannot change, or if they aren't in a position of financial stability? They're not men? Not masculine?

That seems to really flatten the experience of what it means to be a man in society in ways which validate and uphold the structures trying to limit how men can experience and take part in society.

Kimberly posted...

Masculinity is not required for any of these things. Survival itself is not characterized by one's ability to be masculine, even in modern society.

Depends on what your definition of masculinity is to be honest. At the end of the day its all just semantics of words and definition.

what does it say of men who take a different path? Those who are content with where they're at socially

or fucked by a shitty corporate power structure that an individual alone cannot change

or if they aren't in a position of financial stability?

If they are content with their lives, then good for them. But if they did have a desire to rise through the social/financial/power ranks Id imagine improving upon traits society traditionally views as masculine would help you.

But it doesnt mean that person in of themselves are not masculine.

For instance, the person you described could get done lifting weights, be on his way home, and then run into a burning building to save an old lady, then once he gets home they could spend the rest of their time playing Fortnite with their kids, and helping his wife get dinner on the table and the kids to bed.

All of those traits are pretty masculine in spite of the quoted portions. Masculinity is not a all or nothing scenario.

They're not men? Not masculine?

Some men might be considered more masculine than others, and some men might need to improve upon their masculinity just like others might need to tone it down but as my above example illustrates, masculinity isnt an exact science. Its certainly not black and white, or all or nothing.

That seems to really flatten the experience of what it means to be a man in society in ways which validate and uphold the structures trying to limit how men can experience and take part in society.

Thats just society works. Societal structures/taboos dont change over night. But they do change overtime, as society itself evolves.

I am of the belief that even if you disagree with the way society currently operates, you should still put your best foot forward to try and make it work.

For instance, just reclusing ones self away from society, and letting the world trample all over you is not something Id consider a masculine or a feminine trait. Its the trait of a loser.

and believe it or not you can be a masculine loser as well. Like I said, its not all or nothing.

STEROLIZER posted...

But if they did have a desire to rise through the social/financial/power ranks Id imagine improving upon traits society traditionally views as masculine would help you.

That's kinda making my point for me.

I wonder why in a patriarchal society having a specific type of performed masculinity would be beneficial to you. (And detrimental to you if you don't possess it.)

I don't think this is something that can easily be dismissed as a semantics argument, it's literally the root of the problem at the heart of toxic masculinity.

reincarnator07 posted...

The body shaming you've mentioned isn't inherently toxic masculinity, although shaming a man for not being buff absolutely would be. Taking videos of yourself and moaning at people for daring to interrupt your shoot isn't toxic masculinity either, although both these examples are being dicks.

Men body shaming other men absolutely is toxic masculinity - it's this idea that men need to be fit and in shape and men who aren't strong aren't "manly" enough. There is a lot of toxic masculinity in the gym community, although it's not usually by big-ass powerlifters and bodybuilders, but rather, fitness influencers and young men who suffer from severe cases of main character syndrome.

Kimberly posted...

That's kinda making my point for me.

I wonder why in a patriarchal society having a specific type of performed masculinity would be beneficial to you. (And detrimental to you if you don't possess it.)

Theyre just positive traits attributed to men.

Like being a father figure, willing to put oneself in physical harm to protect the family, being able to give a firm handshake and take control of a room, being to lift heavy things, preferring dark meat turkey over white meat turkey

some of those are significant, some are those are trivial. You can call them anything. Society currently identifies them as masculine but you can call them water poodle traits. Whatever theyre called, doesnt affect their value.

I dont believe that people should be dismissive of adapting or improving upon traits that will help a man maneuver through society. You can just call those traits something else, if the name is problematic.

But, like I said, societal change happens slowly overtime, not immediately all at once. So if we want the names of masculine & feminine to change, then it happens just with baby steps. If that change does ever happens to a point where it becomes a societal norm, then it probably wont be in our lifetime.

I don't think this is something that can easily be dismissed as a semantics argument, it's literally the root of the problem at the heart of toxic masculinity.

The name?

STEROLIZER posted...

Masculinity isnt an exact science. Its certainly not black and white, or all or nothing.

I am of the belief that even if you disagree with the way society currently operates, you should still put your best foot forward to try and make it work.

For instance, just reclusing ones self away from society, and letting the world trample all over you is not something Id consider a masculine or a feminine trait. Its the trait of a loser.

and believe it or not you can be a masculine loser as well. Like I said, its not all or nothing.

This is my definition of Masculinity :
https://youtu.be/wz-VJl7UkB8?si=fJVpyux3Yd9BULPo

@kimberly I ask that you turn up your volume and actually listen to the above 44 second clip instead of just discounting it as a joke because its obviously a Macho Man interview.

I'm a toxic asshole.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

Men body shaming other men absolutely is toxic masculinity - it's this idea that men need to be fit and in shape and men who aren't strong aren't "manly" enough. There is a lot of toxic masculinity in the gym community, although it's not usually by big-ass powerlifters and bodybuilders, but rather, fitness influencers and young men who suffer from severe cases of main character syndrome.

Not automatically, although the example you're giving is identical to the one I gave.

STEROLIZER posted...

Theyre just positive traits attributed to men.

Like being a father figure, willing to put oneself in physical harm to protect the family, being able to give a firm handshake and take control of a room, being to lift heavy things, preferring dark meat turkey over white meat turkey

"Being a father figure" is insanely vague and at best encompasses many exclusive traits. Putting one's self in harm to protect their family isn't just for men. That said, the expectation that men should put themselves in harm is actually pretty bad for men a lot of the time. If we believe in gender equality, why should one side bear the brunt of harm? How about not getting to that point in the first place?

Giving a firm handshake and take control of the room is the worst one here. The former is men seeing even an introduction as an interaction in which you need to dominate people. That's a really unhealthy way to see the world. Not every space needs to be dominated or controlled. On top of that, even in this mindset these aren't universally positive traits. They're often negative when applied to women. A woman who tries to crush your hand and control a room is generally described as bossy, bitchy and unladylike.

There's also the unsaid implication that men that don't fit these roles are lesser as men, even though not everyone fits this mold.

I am not a toxic male. I don't shame others for not being masculine.

reincarnator07 posted...

Not automatically, although the example you're giving is identical to the one I gave.

"Being a father figure" is insanely vague and at best encompasses many exclusive traits. Putting one's self in harm to protect their family isn't just for men.

I agree with this, and the rest of your commentary. But thats also my point. Masculine is just a word, and it varies from person to person.

Its vague by nature, and a lot of folks get hung up on trying to define the word as if it were a trigonometry question. But masculinity isnt an exact science, its just language that we as society use to conveniently label stuff.

In general I think masculine traits are just any admirable traits that our society typically attributes to men; traits that helps men wade through society to succeed at life.

reincarnator07 posted...

Giving a firm handshake and take control of the room is the worst one here. The former is men seeing even an introduction as an interaction in which you need to dominate people. That's a really unhealthy way to see the world. Not every space needs to be dominated or controlled.

It is a trait that helps you in business, rising through the social ladder of powerful men, maneuvering through the bullshit power dynamics, and getting to a place where one can become financially stable.

Those three things were examples of anti-masculinity that Kim gave me. Which is why I used it.

But the context to me giving out that reply was that being masculine isnt an all or nothing thing. However, if you are in a position where you actually desire to wade through the politics to improve your social/financial position, then the traits that one needs to improve upon in order to acheive those things are often considered masculine traits because they exist to help men succeed within our society.

Its not a matter of it being an unhealthy way to see the world; its a matter of just accepting thats how the world currently works, and until our societal structure evolves and changes, its something that men will have to navigate in order to succeed in certain facets of society.

On top of that, even in this mindset these aren't universally positive traits. They're often negative when applied to women. A woman who tries to crush your hand and control a room is generally described as bossy, bitchy and unladylike.

Thats correct. Thats why theyre called masculine traits because they help men navigate our society. Feminine Traits help women navigate our society.

Thats just the way the world works. You can rage against the machine, as you should, but you shouldnt quit and recluse yourself from society. Doing so makes it extremely difficult to accomplish whatever your goals might be. Almost impossible actually.

There's also the unsaid implication that men that don't fit these roles are lesser as men, even though not everyone fits this mold.

Depends on what youre doing, or how you want to live your live. Masculine Traits help men navigate the world, and Feminine Traits help women. Thats just our society operates, the individual is taken out of the equation entirely.

So its up to the person to use said traits appropriately in context of the society we live in, to get what they want people want different things out of life if youre happy, youre happy. Screw the haters

No.

reincarnator07 posted...

"Being a father figure" is insanely vague and at best encompasses many exclusive traits. Putting one's self in harm to protect their family isn't just for men. That said, the expectation that men should put themselves in harm is actually pretty bad for men a lot of the time. If we believe in gender equality, why should one side bear the brunt of harm? How about not getting to that point in the first place?

Bingo.

Gladius_ posted...

What about men who don't exhibit that ability? Men who are more passive, submissive, don't like confrontation, etc? What about the men who just can't really be assertive because it's simply not their nature? What's your thoughts there? (Geniinely curious)

If they want to succeed in that area of society, they need to improve upon the traits necessary for success.

Change happens slowly overtime, if as a society we decide that shaking hands & taking control of a room is no longer a reliable measuring stick for corporate leadership then itll be phased out.

But as of today, its a tool used to maneuver the odd power dynamics in both upper society & corporate governance and being able to master those areas often leads to higher salaried jobs w/ more power & greater social status.

So if a man wants those things, then its a trait one might consider improving upon. But not having said trait doesnt make you not masculine there are hundreds of masculine traits.

Im sure if the theoretical person in your example is uncomfortable with their position in life they would activiely be seeking to improve upon the traits that are necessary to get them to where they want to be, and not everyone wants to be in the same place.

What I would consider a form of toxic masculinity would be to shame or admonish someone for not having the same masculine traits that they personally value. But in reality its different strokes for different folks.

I really like and want to build upon the understanding that masculinity comes in all forms.

You mention social climbing and corporate climbing a lot as a fundamental reason why these ideals hold value, right? When do those ideals not hold value though? Can you think of any reasons when that would happen, and who they would hurt if they did?

Because while I do really appreciate your acknowledgement of things like consent, respect, dignity, etc I think you might be allowing a few things go unacknowledged which tarnish those virtues in upholding this idealized framework/justifying it's existence off of a very limited measurement of success. I think looking at the answers to the questions that I posed might help highlight those blindspots. (And we all have blindspots through our various forms of privilege, myself included. Please don't take that the wrong way when I mention either of those things.)

Gladius_ posted...

What about men who don't exhibit that ability? Men who are more passive, submissive, don't like confrontation, etc? What about the men who just can't really be assertive because it's simply not their nature? What's your thoughts there? (Geniinely curious)

The position a lot of those guys end up in helps TC's argument. TC used to have an axe to grind against perputally single underachieving men (though he seems to have moved on).

Unfortunately, despite the push for freedom from gender roles, a minimal amount of masculine traits still seems required for most men to advance in dating. And to a lesser extent one's still expected to be competitive academically/professionally.

It's possible to accept that a situation is bad and comfort complaints about while still remembering that there can be harsh pemalties for deviating from the norm.

There are harsh penalties from deviating from the norm, always. This isn't a phenomenon exclusive to masculinity, though it does share a unique relationship to the problem given how patriarchal society pushes a very explicit type of masculine performance as the norm for men. (and to a lesser extent women trying to achieve in men-dominated spaces, such as corporate hierarchies)

Pointing out that validation of those structures upholds toxic masculinity though does not mean that the difficulties men face for deviating from the norm magically vanish. What it does argue for is no longer putting that type of toxic masculinity on a pedestal, instead asking that we change how we discuss what masculinity means and how it can empower all men rather than just a privileged few. Because that's all that playing the game really gets you: a privileged few get to experience the benefits associated with that specific performance of masculinity, those who cannot are left behind, and there is only so many reps you can do in a day to chase that ideal before you hit some sort of wall which blocks your ability to reach an idealization that isn't obtainable for most people.

Kimberly posted...

What it does argue for is no longer putting that type of toxic masculinity on a pedestal, instead asking that we change how we discuss what masculinity means and how it can empower all men rather than just a privileged few. Because that's all that playing the game really gets you: a privileged few get to experience the benefits associated with that specific performance of masculinity, those who cannot are left behind, and there is only so many reps you can do in a day to chase that ideal before you hit some sort of wall which blocks your ability to reach an idealization that isn't obtainable for most people.

It's put on a pedestal in this context to condition men into growing into those roles from youth (maximixing the amount who benefit). If caught early enough a boy who starts off naturally quiet, passive, and/or submissive can be molded into a traditional male who both enjoys and grows competent at fulfilling their assigned gender roles.

If it's not caught early enough, the boy instead grows into his natural inclinations as a teen and young man (possibly further encouraged by a tolerant feminist upbringing), probably doesn't get very far in achievements or dating, and then we get grown ass men trying to harshly course correct with red pill/Hustler's University toxic trash after finding out their natural personalities weren't going to produce results.

And often they're bitter they have to change at all, especially when their previous behavior was harmless to others, a result of them following orders and trying to practice good behavior, and is often socially acceptable when women do it instead. They potentially drift into incel territory if said changes are too much for them to handle so late in life.

It would be great if society could be adjusted to welcome timid docile men as they are, but progress is really slow on that front and too many fall through the cracks during the intermediary period.

Its pretty equal parts horrible people on both sides, but no one wants to have that discussion because both sides.

Like theres never a middle ground.

Gladius_ posted...

No. There isn't and there shouldn't be.

The middle ground and goal is:

Men should allowed to be men and we shouldn't be punishing men for not fitting into some box. Shy men, goofy men, serious men, and everywhere in-between should be just as valid as hyper traditional masculine men. What other compromise is there?

I think we reached the same conclusion with much less discussion.

STEROLIZER posted...

It is a trait that helps you in business, rising through the social ladder of powerful men, maneuvering through the bullshit power dynamics, and getting to a place where one can become financially stable.

Those three things were examples of anti-masculinity that Kim gave me. Which is why I used it.

But the context to me giving out that reply was that being masculine isnt an all or nothing thing. However, if you are in a position where you actually desire to wade through the politics to improve your social/financial position, then the traits that one needs to improve upon in order to acheive those things are often considered masculine traits because they exist to help men succeed within our society.

Its not a matter of it being an unhealthy way to see the world; its a matter of just accepting thats how the world currently works, and until our societal structure evolves and changes, its something that men will have to navigate in order to succeed in certain facets of society.

The issue is that often times they're not helping men progress. In many cases they actively harm men. To use my own anecdotes, I had far more success both at work and in my personal life when I stopped trying so hard to be masculine. I moved out of sales in tech and watches to an admin role in an office where there's only a couple of guys including myself. My pay is better, my work/life balance is better and I'm more happy and significantly less stressed and anxious. I've had far more luck with women by not trying to dominate every interaction.

In short, I'm better off by not trying to be so masculine. It simply doesn't work for me. Obviously everyone is different, but that's kind of the point. One size doesn't fit everyone.

Thats correct. Thats why theyre called masculine traits because they help men navigate our society. Feminine Traits help women navigate our society.

Thats just the way the world works. You can rage against the machine, as you should, but you shouldnt quit and recluse yourself from society. Doing so makes it extremely difficult to accomplish whatever your goals might be. Almost impossible actually.

They... kinda didn't. Traditionally feminine women were the ones stuck at home, being housewife and broodmare in equal parts while also being dependent on their male guardians. That was great for those that wanted that, but many wanted more.

On the men's side, it's not really working for us today either. We work longer hours and more dangerous jobs. Our suicide rate is dramatically higher than that of women. Our mental health in general is shot and we're on the whole more lonely than women. We're falling behind in higher education and even income when it comes to young people. We're more likely to be the victim AND perpetrators of crime, especially when it comes to violent crime.

Depends on what youre doing, or how you want to live your live. Masculine Traits help men navigate the world, and Feminine Traits help women. Thats just our society operates, the individual is taken out of the equation entirely.

So its up to the person to use said traits appropriately in context of the society we live in, to get what they want people want different things out of life if youre happy, youre happy. Screw the haters

"Because that's how it is" is a piss poor reason to do pretty much anything.

(To Diceheist) I think we largely agree, but I want to push back on the framing a lil bit.

You're right that these feelings lead to bitterness, loneliness, and isolation that the world does a shit job at addressing. So this exposure is certainly maximizing something - but what I argue it's maximizing is the amount of young boys and men who are harmed by those toxic ideals.

Those hurt people will try to rationalize their experiences when processing that hurt, which can lead them to places like Andrew Tate, Fresh & Fit, etc. The intent is to highlight how defensive strategies for coping with an awful world still leads to harm, how internalizing those "hard life lessons" can still be incredibly harmful, and why allowing those strategies to dominate the conversation leaves behind a fertile breeding ground that toxic grifters get reap the harvest of a lifetime of societal abandonment.

We don't have to abandon these people to those defensive strategies though. We, as group of people who recognize the problem, can offer a better alternative.

Diceheist posted...

And often they're bitter they have to change at all, especially when their previous behavior was harmless to others, a result of them following orders and trying to practice good behavior, and is often socially acceptable when women do it instead. They potentially drift into incel territory if said changes are too much for them to handle so late in life.

It's not that their previous behavior was harm less but that we as people were never taught to understand that as harm in the first place.

Gladius_ posted...

Women can perpetuate and exhibit toxic masculinity.

toxic femininity does exist as well

Gladius_ posted...

Outside of the extreme religious and conservatives.. we have mostly killed those ideas.

I dearly wish that were true, but it's not. Trad wife media resurgence happened for a reason, and it's sadly more popular than we might like outside of those spaces you mentioned. Romantic stories are appealing for a reason. No one is immune to propaganda. But I don't want to wholly hijack the topic to move away from how men are affected by harmful hierarchies.

Diceheist posted...

If caught early enough a boy who starts off naturally quiet, passive, and/or submissive can be molded into a traditional male who both enjoys and grows competent at fulfilling their assigned gender roles.

Did you see the story about the Dad who beat his 2 year old for acting gay? That's the kind of behavior this logic leads to, whether you agree with it or not.

ChocoboMogALT posted...

Did you see the story about the Dad who beat his 2 year old for acting gay? That's the kind of behavior this logic leads to, whether you agree with it or not.

I wouldnt use a homophobic sociopath in this argument. Plenty of boys interested in girl toys turn out straight without being beaten half to death at the age of 2.

Gladius_ posted...

"Molding someone into" what they're not is a horrible concept that shouldn't be forced on men. People aren't machines or animals to be trained.

But we're not yet at a state where everyone is accepted as they are. And for those it applies to, not encouraging them (gently, of course) to expand beyond that position in their youths (when they're most malleable) sets them up for problems later in life.

Gladius_ posted...

And "both enjoys or" says who? If you take some courses in behavioral science and studies you'd know that there are a lot of "functional" men in high positions of society who are incredibly depressed and even outright suicidal because they are living in a way that is counter to their nature while juggling the expectations society levies at them.

Those men are taking it too far and failing to ever reach a point of contentment. I think youths should be taught to play the role up to the extent of achieving a reasonably satisfactory level of success, that can be maintained comfortably without endless stress. They should not just constantly pursue greater success and victory beyond the point of neccessity, unless that's their genuine passion in life. Nobody is happy stretching beyond their limits, nor should they be shamed into feeling like failures for not doing so.

Gladius_ posted...

This isn't always the case either. There's many men who also buck the norms who go on to live very happy and fulfilling lives. Is this all men who buck these trends? No. But the sooner men can live the way they wish so long as it doesn't come at the expense of others the better and that day will come a lot sooner when we can stop apologizing for normalizing crappy behavior/practices.

It's a difficult subject, because as long as we're the gray area where many non-standard men fail the more restrictive advice will likely continue being promoted as a solution.

Gladius_ posted...

Also the number of guys who "can't date" are a very small subset of men and not all of that tiny subgroup share "passive and submissive traits." Some are incredibly domineering, aggressive, competitive, and violent

I believe we discussed the matter before and while you highlighted men you had encountered who ruined their prospects with aggressive/possessive plays, while I was exclusively referring to guys who just don't encounter women in dating contexts at all and are completely seperated from the environment.

To be clear I'm never referring to men who directly make their own beds/architecy their own demise, here. Those again are men taking things too far, who need to learn where the line. If a dude gets a chance but kills it with hostile weird behavior then that is on him (and whoever's word he may be taking as gospel for how to act). I'm only referring to men who can't get a foot in the door at all.

"Very small" is a distinction without relevance IMO, 25%-30% of Americans in their 20s aren't sexually active according to social surveys, but even it was only 2% of the population that is still literally millions of people.

Gladius_ posted...

Most incels have been proven to not be men who bucked trends but men who failed to adapt to new trends. That failed to realize that traditional traits that entitled them to women no longer do so.

I don't think very many of them are abundant in traditional personality traits (they may have money or muscles, but that's it). Hence why even the manly men we've had here hated them. Pleading, whining, and dooming is not viewed as masculine. Men are "supposed to be" problem solvers undeterred by negative setbacks. They're not also not supposed to admit any of position of weakness towards women.

Gladius_ posted...

Most incels believe they are entitled to women because they have a career, they have a job, and instead base their failings on women being picky, not being tall enough, or not being rich enough. They think it's because they don't have ENOUGH power but masculinity alone will not grant a man a "wife" in the modern day.

That is typically the route taking for the men too prideful to consider that their personality is a detrimental factor (be it due to a lack of masculinity or some other problem), which is part of what I refer to when I say the necessary changes are too much to handle for some guys after they're already set in their ways. They seek higher placement in shallow regards exclusively because their personality just is what it is by that point.

Gladius_ posted...

This is 100% true but you are conflating two different groups into one.

I'm moreso referring to them at different points of time. Maybe the guy is harmless for 30 years but after still being a single virgin at that point finally falls down the creep/incel pipeline. Maybe he has a midlife crisis in his 40s and snaps. The point is that if the problem persists indefinitely there's an increasing chance things go especially bad eventually.

Diceheist posted...

And for those it applies to, not encouraging them (gently, of course) to expand beyond that position in their youths (when they're most malleable) sets them up for problems later in life.

That is one hell of a default assumption, so much so that I really had to stop reading and ask immediately: what do you mean by that, what sort of problems are you referencing? What are you basing that assumption on?

Kimberly posted...

To Diceheist) I think we largely agree, but I want to push back on the framing a lil bit.

You're right that these feelings lead to bitterness, loneliness, and isolation that the world does a shit job at addressing. So this exposure is certainly maximizing something - but what I argue it's maximizing is the amount of young boys and men who are harmed by those toxic ideals.

Those hurt people will try to rationalize their experiences when processing that hurt, which can lead them to places like Andrew Tate, Fresh & Fit, etc.

I don't think Tate, Fresh & Fit, and friends get to grift if boys were already taught healthy masculinity in their youths. I think they profit off a power vacuum regarding the guidance of young boys. Families have become increasingly hands-off about it in favor of "be yourself" and "social freedom" oriented mentalities.

Kimberly posted...

The intent is to highlight how defensive strategies for coping with an awful world still leads to harm, how internalizing those "hard life lessons" can still be incredibly harmful, and why allowing those strategies to dominate the conversation leaves behind a fertile breeding ground that toxic grifters get reap the harvest of a lifetime of societal abandonment.

We don't have to abandon these people to those defensive strategies though. We, as group of people who recognize the problem, can offer a better alternative.

Theoretically. But these subjects are endlessly argued on forums like Reddit and many alternatives seem reluctant to acknowledge the "harsh truths" of dating trends out of fear of generalizations and political incorrectness, refuse to be coldly specific in their advice in favor having men be authentic and honest instead (even some men's honest authentic selves aren't intimately enticing), push platitudes that don't necessarily work when broken down literally, etc. It is exceedingly hard to construct actionable advice for the truly socially awkward without running afoul of some social etiquette.

Kimberly posted...

It's not that their previous behavior was harmless but that we as people were never taught to understand that as harm in the first place.

To be honest if someone isn't bothering others then I don't consider their behavior harmful. Even it doesn't advance their own prospects, I'd sooner view society's lack of tolerance as the agent of harm there.

LonelyStoner posted...

I wouldnt use a homophobic sociopath in this argument. Plenty of boys interested in girl toys turn out straight without being beaten half to death at the age of 2.

Why not? If you and STERO are going to argue for the objectivist/consequentialist outcomes of "teaching boys to be men" specifically in a particular mold, then the consequences of the people (and there are many) holding this view should be held to scrutiny.

There is no bottom. At the end of the day, deifying some view of masculinity held by (a very particular subset of) society leads to punishing young boys for being/"acting" gay, effeminate, or girly - real or imagined. It used to be (more) common to beat you wife - it was legal to the point that marital rape was not recognized.

Arguing that "we should teach young people to act like society expects" is a shitshow. You can teach them to be assertive, out-going, imaginative, respectful, et cetera. But teaching them that existing within a box is the only way to succeed only perpetuates cycles of abuse and unethical behavior.

Kimberly posted...

That is one hell of a default assumption, so much so that I really had to stop reading and ask immediately: what do you mean by that, what sort of problems are you referencing? What are you basing that assumption on?

I'm saying that for men whose natural personalities don't fall within the realm of what society deems desirable, they're liable to end up largely shunned in life, with no great options for a way out by the time they realize it.

A lot of social skills are learned naturally as you age, but some guys' personalities leave them with such little socialization in their youths that they don't hit these milestones while their minds are designed to effortlessly absorb information and adapt. And it is potentially too late after that.

Once they can no longer learn non-verbal social nuances as a matter of organic social development, well a lot of the philosophies that try to spell it out literally for them instead often end up veering down the red pill road of toxicity and objectification. Meanwhile standard normal people advice doesn't work for them because they lack the proper social context to interpret it within. So for example someone will tell one of these guys "treat women like people" and he'll just treat her literally the exact same way he treats guys and have a bunch of female friends but never any intimate relationship. He will hear "respect women's boundaries" and just never raise any intimate subject with any woman ever in order to minimize the risk of offending her, and will be incapable of perceiving any social cues to the contrary. He is in a deep hole.

Diceheist posted...

I don't think Tate, Fresh & Fit, and friends get to grift if boys were already taught healthy masculinity in their youths. I think they profit off a power vacuum regarding the guidance of young boys. Families have become increasingly hands-off about it in favor of "be yourself" and "social freedom" oriented mentalities.

I think the only vacuum there is a lack of community, which is very different from a lack of guidance. Within that vacuum, the manosphere offers not just community but a rigid set of principles which that community is prepared to support.

You talk a lot about healthy masculinity, but when you boil down how you speak of its performance and what defines its success or failure...it's not all that different to the toxic variant you're condemning. It still buys into the same lies that people tell men, but instead promises that you can walk right up to that cliff edge and never fall off it. It automatically sets people up to get that one little shove, whether that advice means well or not.

Actual healthy expression of masculine identity, I think, seeks to dismantle that thinking entirely.

Diceheist posted...

Theoretically.

I mean, is it though? We know how reactive abuse works. We're telling people that you must do everything right, even the things you have no control over, and when you fail it's your fault. You just didn't perform masculinity well enough.

You talk about political correctness hemming in fears, but the majority demographic in places like dating subreddits are dominated by rigorous enforcement of social norm from fellow men critiquing men spouting the most sexist tropes about their fellow men than it is women mocking people for their height.

The harm is pretty easily observed.

Diceheist posted...

To be honest if someone isn't bothering others then I don't consider their behavior harmful.

I mean, that's my point: we're conditioning people to not view this behavior as harmful when it is.