Many Ways to Be a Girl, but One Way to Be a Boy: The New Gender Rules - Sensationalist Headlines

That fails to acknowledge that stoicism is more of a life philosophy and is borderline impossible to switch off for many men without therapy. You can't just turn emotions on and off at a whim, if you stifle them it becomes difficult to get out of that habit.

You are coming off quite judgmental, but I doubt that is your intention. What gets lost so often in this discussion in who's blame it is, which problem is more severe, which expectation and role are harmful or beneficial and so on and so forth, is the sheer complexity of the issue itself and how fruitless it is to dive into these battles of semantics. Trying to squeeze all the issues into tiny little boxes fails at reality, what might work for one scenario, situation, person or society might not work for the next. There is no easy shortcut here, and if you still try to find one, chances are that isn't as beneficial or smart as you think. Both men and women wield a certain power in society, they both make up the majority of what we consider society, they are differences in what aspect what gender dominates and they are differences in which particular issues are more severe then others. But what does it matter? We should focus on solving issues head on, as many as possible, as effective as possible. Not try to just dismiss, judge or otherwise just discredit these troubles many groups have. I believe it is the responsibility of society and every individual to support other fellow human beings as much as possible, without piling on judgment, pressuring them into roles or otherwise making their life harder than it needs to be. There is no universal solution to this, just a general approach that just makes logical sense: To be as supportive, understanding and helping as possible. In the end, every person in their respective environment has to find or carve their specific identity and place in life. But we can certainly help them accomplish this. I know it isn't as comforting to those of us who aren't facing these problems as much as others do, to not put those issues in these neat little drawers our brains and our societies manufacture and file it all way. It takes some effort to try not being judgmental, unbiased and open-minded as possible and not just settle into these preconceived notions. And yes, there are some people that try to claim this attention and thinking time and goodwill for themselves, just for the sake of attention, or just appear more special/individual then others, to just be malicious (trolling), put themselves above others, or other nefarious reasons. This is ongoing challenge of being moderate and supportive without getting taken advantage of, for causes one might not themselves believe in. But the approach itself doesn't have to be complicated. Trying to be the best version of yourself and being as objectively good as you can be, isn't hard. I myself subscribe to the following line of thought A particular action or choice is moral or right if it somehow promotes happiness, well being or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering, or both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong if it somehow diminishes happiness, well being or health, or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering, or both. I believe in the power of the single individual and the society to leverage our strengths to identify and sort out as many challenges as we can, It is beneficial to all of us to make the lives of others as good as we can. The better of someone else is, the better off we all are as a group. They will always be differences between individuals, groups of individual, or entire demographics, I am aware of that. And solving every last single minuscule thing is Utopian, if that even can be archived. But we should still try, to be as good as possible. How much you put weight on obligations and expectations coming from society or morality is entirely up to you, I can only appeal to the good of human nature in us all. tl;dr Life is complex, there is no universal solution, it requires effort to be as good and moral as possible but it is achievable and that should be strived for.

I'll consider this patriarchy idea once men stop being considered expendable The thing about positions of power and responsibility that men so much have is that they got those by being strong, stoic, decisive and selfish enough to beat their competition. So despite having "power" they can't change the system because if they stop being tough, they'll be replaced. I think that's what masculinity is largely about, being competitive no matter the personal cost. The classic masculine traits (positive and negative) really do get you power and respect in social groups, but if someone is performing that role better than you, you need to step up, and so does everyone else. It's a positive feedback loop.

Patriarchy, in my mind, is mostly just a shorthand for "Men hold the vast majority of political and corporate power in the world." I don't think getting more complex than that is particularly productive.

While that is nice and all, you must remember that not everyone knows that, hence why it helps to use the actual correct terms for stuff.

The problem is that as a cishet white dude from an affluent family I'm still directionless, powerless, and fucking miserable. Somehow I can acknowledge the nuance behind the idea of patriarchy and these discussions but people like me are prime prey for demagogues and snake oil salesmen like Trump, Daddy Peterson and Ben Sharpiro. Those men go on to execerbate and extend these problems for personal profit. All of that said I still think internet progressives have a huge empathy problem. We can talk about how we should empathise with it all and how freedom for certain groups is beneficial for all. But that groupification and failure to empathise is still totally a thing among progressives. It's so much easier for them to sympathise with faceless oppressed masses like refugees than it is with technically privelledged individuals like particular cishet men who are still alienated af. I want this to change, we can't really create a better world until we all group together to make one. Division is the enemy.

I try to adapt my terminology according to who I'm speaking to.

I don’t really take the Patriarchy idea that seriously either, but only because of just how many variations of the basic idea I’ve heard of it. I mean, with things like Women’s Rights & Men’s Rights, no matter how far and/or radical someone goes into them, there’s at least still this basic idea that everyone builds off from. With those two, for example, that would be better rights for each Sex. With the Patriarchy though, I have no idea what that basic idea is. The ones I've heard that ranged from as extreme as “men have most of the power in the whole world”, to something simpler like “most of those who have power in the whole world are men”, to something even simpler like “there are more male politicians than female politicians”. Like seriously, which one is it?

Unfortunately you can't really expect a 100% consensus opinion on these things, as charged as they are. I don't mind Wikipedia's definition one bit, though: Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.[1][2] Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[3] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.[4][5]

I would take Patriarchy more seriously if the language its often paired with makes me think the Reptilians are controlling us. Then I start wishing for a lizard GF and we're in this hole now.

If anyone's confused about what toxic masculinity is, I think Terry Crews did a really good job of defining it. Masculinity is about self control and self mastery. Toxic masculinity is about controlling and mastering others. A masculine person might work out so that they're better at their job, or because they enjoy struggling and improving. A toxic person works out because they're afraid they won't be strong enough to dominate others. A masculine person might use their experience with overcoming adversity to inspire others. A toxic person uses their greater experience to intimidate others and preserve their position of superiority. A masculine person might not express their emotions at certain times because there's something else that needs to be done. A toxic person never expresses their emotions because they're afraid of being vulnerable. Masculinity is very much a natural and healthy thing. Toxic masculinity is just a symptom of insecurity and distrust. It's the response to the anxiety of "If I am emotional, people will use that against me. If I am weak, others will hurt me. If I am charitable, others will take advantage of me." It's a survival strategy.

You're coming from a position of severe misunderstanding of the term "equality". When you enter a discussion, I suggest you actually put yourself on a mindset of hearing and understanding instead of argumentative tyranny. You need to actually explain your positions and beliefs and provide support for them. What you're doing right now is saying "Cause I say so". First of all, "equality" as most people intend it is not some sort of memetic communism where a killer and a saint are equal. It's the exact opposite. Wanting equality is to want to judge every person because of what they do, not what they are. It's striving to reduce bias. It means that if Eve can cry and it's seen as a good thing because release of emotion is healthy, then Adam can do that too without it suddenly becoming a negative thing just because he's got a few extra bits in his underwear. That explained, I'd also like to reconsider your strongly held, but objectively unfounded opinions. It's an objective fact that social norms are fickle. Thirty years ago people said faggots would never marry. Sixty years ago, people said niggers would never be accepted. A hundred years ago, those hysterical women would never leave the kitchen. To call these people snowflakes is to insult the guy building a roof because you're perfectly contented wallowing in mood when it rains.

It's important to point out that toxic masculinity is a totally logical response to certain circumstances. If others will hurt you if you're weak, if others will exploit your emotions, if others will take advantage of your charity, a "toxic" mindset makes total sense. In the same way boarding up your windows and setting death traps around your house makes sense if someone is trying to kill you. The truth is, a lot of people do live in circumstances like that. Because of that, they're forced to develop an adversarial survival attitude, which leads them to hurt other people, and in turn the people they hurt are pushed in the same direction. Dealing with toxic masculinity is a prisoner's dilemma problem. As long as people feel they have reason to believe they're in danger, being toxic is the only logical response.

You're describing cold-headedness, the ability to let rational thinking prevail in a situation of urgency, instead of succumbing to the panic or feelings of helplessness that typically occur then. Stoicism is about not showing your emotions. A stoic guy can be internally boiling with rage or swept with fear, and act irrationally as a result, he simply won't show the underlying emotions to his choices. It's a superficial difference. Cold-headedness only serves when in very distressing situations, that's <1% of your overall lifetime, and won't show in the vast majority of social situations. Unless we're talking about a woman falling in love with a fireman who just saved her, it's basically irrelevant as a dating criterion. The only purpose being stoic serves is to hide your weaknesses to your enemies. Again, not relevant in most social situations. And detrimental to proper relationship development, since if you can't express your emotions then you won't be able to communicate adequately with your partner, and are bound to run into crippling issues sooner or later. And that's without taking into account personal issues as well. So no, women's alleged preference for the stoic type isn't a rational one. It simply "looks cool".

I want to back up a bit and point out this phrase has no basis in maritime law. I checked and women were not included because Selective Service is essentially considered perpetration for drafting combat troops. And women were not allowed in combat roles until 2013.

I'm not claiming that that's a systemic policy but rather an idea that a lot of people agree with. Yes, Selective Service is just another word for the draft. I didn't say "draft" because I knew someone would say "but akchually the draft hasn't existed for a long time!" It impacts me more that I'm forced to fight and die for my country than that women didn't have the option to, sorry.

I mean we could just mention how young men who don't sign up for selective service also get cut off from things like Federal Student Loans and other key infrastructure.

Sure it's not a law, but considering the phrase has been seriously applied countless times in history, I find it evidence that our western societies don't consider men objectively more important than women. An idea which the term "patriarchy" is often used to imply. It's more complex than that. I'm rather unfamiliar with drafting but if it works similarly to conscription it's a pretty good example of society's double standards on both men and women. Throughout history militaries have forced men into service for the greater good, and not allowed women in for the same reason. Men are forced to do things, women are forced not to do things, to put it simply. Gender roles hurt everyone who doesn't fit in regardless of who the system puts in charge. I'm not sure what your take on this is. The article is about how men feel left out progress away from restrictive gender roles, and it looks to me you're whether intentionally or not shifting the discourse back into how women are hurt by the system

I do feel like it's about time we start looking at men's issues. The law and society are set up to reflect the expected stoicness of men, and I think if we don't start looking at them soon, toxic masculinity and gender inequality will become entrenched. The simple fact is that things aren't changing for men, so those issues need to be talked about

I'd rate you winner but i agree'd. Quite a summary for an idea that is something more people should think about.

Suddenly being manly and stoic is considered the wrong way to be a human, let alone a man. What the fuck is wrong with this thread, its disgusting.

That's not really been the general consensus of the thread though, in fact there's been a lot of good dicussion with various viewpoints imo.

Just check prev page and the one before just made me realize this thread has some skewed perspectives on toxic masculinity

Don't forget the fact that this thread is about how men are expected to act a certain way, and that this particular way is not healthy for some/most peoples. Like, we are saying that "bro if you want to like flowers and cry sometime it's okay bro, and if you want to be the stoic, broody guy, it's okay too bro" We just want people to be able to express themselves the way they want. Because a man is firstly a Human Being, who built themselves by being able to express themselves in the first place. So if you want to believe that being a man solely equals to being a stoic and whatever the definition of "Manly" is to you, you are free to be just that. But don't say it's "disgusting" that people want to be a man the way they want, without being shunned for it.

Toxic masculinity is acting in a way you perceive as masculine to a point where it hurts yourself and those around you. Also, I'm not sure where this plays into the issue. But I totally want to be a "manly man" and I'm totally not, I have no facial hair, am very short and am incredibly vulnerable with almost everyone. I don't know why I want to be this way, and I know deep down it's not a person I can ever be, genetically and personalitywise. But it's just how I want to be. I don't think I'm influenced in this sense by Hollywood Greek Gods on the big screen or whatever, but who knows. I acknowledge that, subversive though they may be, there's other ways to be a man, it's just this is the way I want to be. I feel pretty alone in that. In my experience most dudes either strive to some version of universal masculinity, or just *are* how they are masculine or not.

Did you not consider how if those men were born and raised as women, they would not have grown up being strong, stoic, decisive, and selfish enough? Or how possibly women who try to enact those traits are met with more resistance, while men are encouraged to be such? Like I totally get how you feel men are considered expendable and I agree with it, too. I've read articles by women about dating saying "dick is plentiful and cheap." I watched a gender-neutral draft bill get canceled, and a woman say "no, don't add women to the draft, I don't want to die!" but had literally nothing to say about men being drafted. But I think about what made dick being plentiful and cheap. Yes, I'm affected by it unfairly, but I've seen the kind of shit men message women, in droves and it's so cringy and awful. And I think about the ones who decide the draft, and they're those strong, stoic, decisive, and (very) selfish men. While it does matter in how those men got there, in the sense of how can we work to try to make future generations more egalitarian, it does not matter when it comes to saying whether or not society is patriarchal. Are the people in power predominantly men? Is it notably easier for men to achieve that power than women, whatever the reason for such may be? Then society is patriarchal. It's like climate change: there's not really a debate, and most people seem to only want to "debate it" to avoid responsibility for fixing any issue. It is. It exists, and the sooner we say "hey, maybe there are problems to fix," we can get around to fixing them, instead of trying to determine nuances or such.

I personally believe mostly in the latter because I'm a cynic who doesn't trust anybody. I guess I'm Toxic then.

I would counter the final point by pointing out that men are in droves just abandoning society, dropping out of school and etc. I'm in those statistics. Its not so much of will women come to power but when because after a certain point they're just going to be more highly educated because the school systems in the US are inherently lopsided in their direction as well as all the 'advice' for raising children.

Being cynical doesn't make you a toxic asshole. Using your cynicism as a justification to be a toxic asshole does.

Did I consider raising men as women? Why? If a woman tries to fit in the social role of a man, it's no surprise they'll face resistance since they're going against what society expects of them as a woman. Nonconformism tends to be punished regardless of gender. From my experience anyway male social circles are fiercely competitive, and if you try to insert yourself into those circles as an equal, you'll find that others will try to put you below them, and you're expected to hold onto your ground. I'd guess a lot of women think male groups are some buddy bro clubs and misinterpret the social resistance as sexism, even if that wasn't the case. Whereas women are shamed for having a lot of sex, men are shamed for having little. I suppose this drives men to stupid and extreme lengths to get it. Maybe many of those people aren't good with people or wouldn't even want sex that much, but lifelong conditioning has tied their social and self worth to it. So we end up with embarrassing and downright tragic tales of such. And again, more men competing for sex means the whole thing becomes more competitive and that's just not healthy in the long run. Well yeah. Those Strong and selfish men in power naturally tend to support a system that benefits people like them. That's to say specific kinds of men that can fit the mold. Okay, maybe society is patriarchal technically since men are over represented in positions of power. People act like it means all men are more privileged than all women so excuse me if I hate the term. It also rarely comes with the disclaimer that men are also over represented in the lowest and worst off classes of society. There inevitably is debate about it since it doesn't objectively tell us anything about society besides that men are in charge, yet it's used to shut down discussion as some silver bullet implying men can't have suffering in this system whatsoever because hurr they're privileged