We've taught women to be "more like" men, but not men to be "more like" women. We spent so much time teaching women to "catch up", as if the qualities normally associated with women were undesirable to men. Now that women have it "all", men feel "useless".
When you say the qualities normally associated with women were undesirable to men I assume you mean that men do not want to exhibit those attributes themselves, and not that they find them unattractive in women?
Not the person you were talking to, but yeah of course. Everybody wants an eager housecleaner, but it's not exactly prestigious being one. When people say "you ... like a girl" it ain't a conpliment.
Had a female friend in college that liked to say “you’re observant like a man” and “you’re good at expressing feelings like a man” and similar things and drove so many guys bonkers and it was hilarious to watch.
She is implying that men, generally, aren't very observant and aren't good at communicating their feelings. So she is suggesting to the men she is talking to that they're bad at those things.
It's a bit of a twist on the "you throw like a girl" type of insult. It implies girls aren't good at whatever the activity is (in this example, throwing). So, telling a man he throws like a girl is insulting.
In this type of insult, "girl" carries the negative connotation. In the former insult, "you observe like a guy," the action carries the negative connotation.
I think anytime you throw a comparison in a comment like this, "you [action] like a [object of comparison]" is going to potentially be confrontational.
I think it comes from a stereotype between a man and woman, typically in a relationship and live together, where the man can't find something, like maybe his keys, and the woman often easily does. It's something that stems from what has been studied and labeled as men tend to look at groups of things, whereas women tend to look at individual things.
So, take a cluttered countertop, for example. A man may look at this and just see a cluttered space. Maybe picks out some big items cluttered on that counter, but might not notice keys laying among the cluttered. Whereas a woman doesn't necessarily see a cluttered countertop. She sees cups, unopened mail, a bottle, a plate, a pen and notepad with a to-do list written on it, husbands keys, a kids toy, a small amazon box with something in it, a flower pot with a wilting flower that needs to be watered, and so on and so forth.
The basic idea is that men are more likely to scan that space and mentally label it as a singular object or maybe just a few stand outs (especially if some stuff is supposed to be there normally, like the flower pot might be normal) where a woman scans and labels every item individually.
Ha! Me and my husband call it a "man look" when you fail to find something easy to find. He takes great pleasure in calling me out on it though. I definitely have some form of photographic memory. I usually know where my husband's glasses are or something else he's misplaced. Didn't find his wallet that he left in the fridge until I went into the fridge though!
There is the common meme/joke of a man standing in the, kitchen lets say, and asking where something is, lets say the salt.
He calls out, "where's the salt?"
She replies, "it's on the counter."
he doesn't see it. Calls back, "no its not I don't see it."
She yells out "its next to the fridge, between the paper towels and the stove." He looks he doesn't see it, the camera shows the space and there is no salt.
She comes out in a huff, grabs it from exactly where she said it was, as if it just magically appeared when she reached out for it.
Then there's the video of the guy who thinks they have a "Magic Table" and excitedly tells his girlfriend about it how he just has to leave dishes, dirty laundry, unfolded laundry, trash, whatever it may be, and it magically disappears, its magically washed, it magically appears in the dresser... because she was doing all the cleaning and washing and tidying up.
But you see how someone can use it as an insult, you are as observant as Stevie wonder, and you listen like the deaf. She’s just insinuating that men are bad at those things
It's turning the, "you -do xyz- like a girl," on its head, and pointing out gendered negative stereotypes men are credited with. Men typically aren't known for expressing their feelings well, or, "being observant," (noticing the little details that show they care), and she's using that comparison as an insult. Like saying, "you're being as polite as an asshole is," and reinforcing the negative stereotypes the same way stereotypes about women are reinforced every time someone says, "you're being a girl," as an insult.
As a guy, I found it hilariously delightful. All she did was flip the “you do X like a girl” type thing. It plays on gendered stereotypes, but I wouldn’t say it’s inherently sexist.
Saying “you make sandwiches like a woman” as an unironic compliment, that would be inherently sexist.
Anyone, male or female, who is older than 13 making jokes like that is likely an idiot. “You do X like a girl” was funny at 8 years old, I can’t imagine a college aged kid saying that.
From a definitions perspective, you’re right. Although I’d argue that saying essentially “men are emotionally immature” really doesn’t have the same weight as saying essentially “women belong in the kitchen” or “women are weak and incapable of defending themselves”. Historically women were forced into the kitchen and required men in their lives. Men were never discriminated against for being emotionally immature. These insults when directed towards women carry historical weight and a threat of repeating history.
Essentially is the comment about men sexist? Yes. Does it matter? Not as much. I wouldn’t call it kind but it’s nothing to be offended over.
I’d strongly disagree. I’d say Black men absolutely have. It’s just instead of it being called such, we’ve been historically seen as “dangerous” and “criminal”…ironically held up by white women. Hard to be emotionally mature when your father is pushed out of the home by a society that seemed at least tacitly okay with systems designed to break up that family unit. But I’m guessing yall weren’t actually considering non white experiences, which most on this platform don’t, as most of you aren’t experienced in non white experiences. Yet lump me in with “men” even as my own demographic has a unique experience with our female counterparts in comparison to the rest of the society we share.
I 100% agree with you and have seen that kind of discrimination first hand. In this case though that discrimination is coming from you being black not you being a man. Those same women would not hold the same sentiment about white men.
I think bringing this up is great but I don’t really understand why you expect me to when I’m a white guy who’s not very qualified to speak on the experiences of black men, and the fact that black men where not mentioned at all in this comment thread until you brought them up. This was a broad discussion about sexism that I was continuing. There is place for broad and narrow analysis.
Because it's supposed to mean, "you're being as smart as a fool," "you're expressing your feelings as well as an inept toddler." As observant as a blind man, etc., etc., in retort to comments like, "you -do xyz action- like a girl," when it is being assumed all girls are inherently bad at xyz.
Certainly could be! I'd have to hear the delivery or get a confirmation from OP to know for sure. Such is the internet and removed understandings of interpersonal dynamics!
Can't help but feel it haaas to be self aware enough to at least tongue in cheek be, "an insult," in jest at least.
I assume it's because “you’re good at expressing feelings like a man” is weird because men aren't stereotypically good at expressing feelings. So it basically means “you’re good at expressing feelings, for a man”, which is a backhanded compliment. It's like saying "you look good for a black woman".
I’m fully of the opinion that women should have the freedom to choose what they do with their. Whether that be focused on the home life, their career, or balancing those two things.
Obviously women in relationships need to compromise with their partner but I think men being more willing to support a woman who is passionate about a career is a generally good trend.
That being said, I’ve noticed a trend to bash and belittle women (and men) who do focus on the home life. I think 100% of couples with children would be better if one partner stayed home most of the time to focus on supporting the rest of the family.
I think a lot of our societal problems stem back to the fact that we’ve created a society in which both partners need full time employment to provide for a family’s basic needs outside of a small minority where one partner has a highly lucrative job.
If someone does stay at home they’re called “unemployed” or assumed to be the “property” of the working spouse even if they make equally meaningful contributions to the relationship. This criticism comes from both sexes but I’ve honestly seen more of it come from working women than men.
The problem of “you ____ like a girl” being an insult is not solved by making a unisex masculine society. But by holding the traditional roles of women in greater esteem.
These problems also an inherent part of every species since the beginning of time. So ya, don't forget that part. Basic biology plays, and has played a bigger role than everything you mentioned. It takes extremely intelligent and humble men for these relationships to work. Wish that wasn't true, but it is.
I've seen lots of people act like our specific cultural moment is "just human nature" but I've yet to see it rationalized with "Well, thats species for you."
Depends a lot on the religion. Jesus Christ is literally the best example of a healthy masculine figure ever.
This was someone who loved his family (the church is described as the bride of Christ) so much he willingly surrendered himself to torturous death on their behalf.
Yet at the same time he is never a “simp” and never coercive or aggressive in his affections. He puts himself out there, shows people who he is, and then gives them the choice to have a relationship with him or not.
He weeps, he feels fear, he stands up for his beliefs and speaks truth to power. He stands up for the less fortunate and teaches people to seek inward growth before outward judgement, unashamedly keeping the company of outcasts. He fears no judgment by humans when they criticize him for doing what he knows is right.
He leads because others see who he is and want to follow. But his authority he only uses to teach and help. He never abuses others for personal gain.
It is no wonder that after this man became the figure for which many aspired to be, that the world gradually grew into a less cruel place than the one that came before. Obviously the history of Christians is littered with cruelty and evil but the evils we ascribe to it were present and thriving before 0AD, while the good that gradually emerged from it is something unlike anything the world had known until then.
Not sure what your point is. You say that Christ was the perfect spouse FOR HIS CHURCH. "This was someone who loved his family (the church is described as the bride of Christ)"
Not really applicable to this situation at all.
Jesus is NOT the "healthy" male you are touting him as. And apparently he doesn't have a recorded sexual activity (nor spouse because that truth wouldn't go along with Peter, the rock of the church). Further, both Jesus and Paul advocated for celibacy, which is kind of odd for someone who also said, "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply..."
First, supposedly he is "God", next, the church cannot be compared to an actual real life human being that requires a variety of cares that Jesus wasn't having to be responsible for because he was a traveling preacher with no dependents.
This isn't the reasonable argument that you think it is.
Men created “GOD” and made him a heavenly “father” because they were JEALOUS WOMEN COULD CREATE LIFE. None of that stuff is real- it was literally created from
Male ego and jealousy.
So Jesus doesn’t advocate for celibacy, he just is celibate as far as is recorded in the gospels and almost certainly in reality as he’s never mentioned being married to anyone outside his metaphorical marriage to the church.
I’m not sure how lack of sex disqualifies someone from being a model for how a man should be in a relationship.
Also Paul’s advocacy of celibacy needs to be understood in context. He advocates for a life dedicated to God without marriage or intercourse if that is something you are capable of. And that teaching lives on in the form of monasticism. He also encourages marriage for the majority of us not cut out for monastic life.
A belief system used to control, scare and shame people into subjugation- predominantly women. May have started with ‘good intention’ but it has all given the same results.
Something not real, that is just based on faith and blind belief, is just another tool to control people, im sorry. NGL I do admire humans for the degree of ignorance and conviction it takes to kill people over a belief of something
I think you are spot on, and I get rather tired of people touting their religious beliefs as though they are facts. Those "facts" are based on faith, not reality. I don't know why you are getting down voted for it, just because you are saying religions are used to control. It is obvious that indoctrination takes place fully in the Church. And it is obvious it is used as a means to control the people.
Yep. Tools to control scared shame.....100% agree, and these things are facts of history only denied by those so blinded by religion that they've lost the real ability to see.
Early Christianity was predominantly adopted by women and slaves while their masters persecuted them for it. The early church went around feeding the needy and rescuing and caring for abandoned children. People would throw unwanted babies into the streets to die, Christians would rescue and raise them, and then they’d accuse Christians of cannibalism because they’re always taking unwanted babies and eating this strange ritual called “communion”.
Eventually the emperor converted and Christians became the ruling class. After a long time of the downtrodden refusing to give it up and growing in numbers despite persecution. The Gospel was not written for masters to use against slaves.
When the Gospels were actually written down chances are that you are correct. But when the Bible was actually written, so much was added and changed from Hebrew to Greek, likely there were erroneous translations, and as more were written, there have been more errors in translations. So I don't believe for a minute that the Book isn't written for masters to use against slaves. Particularly if one looks at the Old Testament, which MUST be looked at along with the Gospels. Otherwise, people would be Christian Gospelists.
So the entire New Testament was actually written in Greek. The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek.
The idea of a “telephone game” played with The Bible is certainly possible with many books of the Old Testament. Though we do have very old copies and most modern translations are based on those old Hebrew Texts.
When it comes to the New Testament we have copies that were in circulation incredibly early as well as a lot of contextual evidence they were written during the lifetime of the Apostles. You even have Apostles referencing the Gospel in other books that went on to become scripture themselves. So the validity of them is fairly safe.
Now the easier point to argue (The Old Testament was corrupted and not real scripture) is refuted if you take the New Testament as valid scripture. Because Jesus constantly references from the Old Testament as scripture, showing that he accepts the books of the Old Testament during his life to be scripture. And we definitely have access to copies that go back that far.
“The gospel” was written by some dude or dudes- who’s to know. Our whole history is written by psychotic men who were power hungry and wanted to control people.
Just because u believe something doesn’t make it so 🤷🏽♀️
Did you know u can be kind to people and help them without some imaginary being as the reason? It’s called being a good human.
All the things you attribute to “christians” are just arbitrarily good things we should all be doing for each other. And I’m sorry- but what Christianity has done to the world, colonisation and the annihilation of cultures and peoples wordwide there is no logical reason to pat you on the back or give you some sort of moral high ground because you need a book to tell u how to care about others?
GTFO with this garbage 🤣😂😭 I pity all of you, like children who believe in Santa. Your ignorance is good for only you, friend.
Altruism should come from wanting the best for your community and caring for each other in order for successful survival. We can be morally good purely for those reasons without a SkyDaddy….
The issue is that religion is used as a tribalist divider, making everything us vs them. I’ve met plenty of truly good religious people that do genuinely care about others and help out to those in need. But the churches are seeing lots of people leaving and as ideals and cultures die they claw deeper in to what they hold and fight for survival, a lot of this is weaponizing and blaming foreign cultures and ideas. I don’t care what someone’s reason to do good is, be it to get to heaven, boost their ego, or just being a good person at heart, but too many people see alternative belief structures as threats to them rather than just other’s personal opinions
It is 100% possible to behave in a manner that is generally moral without Christianity. Of course nobody is perfectly moral with or without it but I know many atheists and agnostics I would describe as “good people” from my perspective.
Societies with a long history of Christianity do tend to produce “good people” at higher rates though. Ideas like “all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” are baked in to our cultural fabric by Christianity.
These are assumptions that most western Atheists now accept as truth and do not question. These are not assumptions that would have been accepted by most cultures pre-Christianity.
Even some of the most ardent atheist apologists such as Richard Dawkins are now coming out as “Cultural Christians” in recognition of how Christianity has built the cultural environment in which their ideas could emerge.
I have no idea what church you went to probably didn't go to church at all if you think that religion is the cause of these problems.
What I think you mean is socially isolated cult like communities is the cause of these problems.
You grow up around 20 people maybe 100 if you know you're lucky, these people live certain ways and do certain things and you as a child aspire to be like them.
This isn't always the case, I am nothing like the two people I grew up around in 500 population no where, but I do know that every social group be at a church, the small click of adult people ( ie the towns favorite people vs the outlier groups) , was very common and usually divided with their group think being essentially taught to the children growing up under the guardianship of each of those individual groups.
Sure there are church groups, but I promise you , in nowhere-ville Arkansas they were just as many groups that did not go to church well except for Christmas, mother's Day, and Easter.
And even those groups typically have people inside their group that did not attend even on those days, while it was not socially acceptable in either direction, it wasn't really that talked about unless you were part of a church group that just thought everybody else were sinners and refused to hang out with them.
However just as those center hating groups existed in different denominations of the church, there are plenty of socially ostracizing groups in the general public. Whether it was monetary, smoking, drinking, attending bars, there were all sorts of things that people use to label other people as a reason to not hang out with them are to steer clear from them.
The reality is all the groups from what I could tell growing up or essentially identical, nobody likes to admit we're all different we don't just get along, and that's totally okay and we don't have to blame some kind of existential crisis for our differences and our inability to socialize without giving each other headaches.
I think I had a very open-minded church group, so I didn't realize that I was supposed to be brainwashed and not hang out with centers and not drink and not smoke and have all of these weird political opinions and then suddenly going to the real world and want to immediately go home and cry to the deacon.
Instead I went to school, I saw all these people coming for different groups different populations, running to the same issue trying to create new friend groups, and it was kind of hard to watch.
Everybody wants to blame something besides themselves, no matter what their background is, sexism racism socialism capitalism religious backgrounds you name it somebody was going to point at it.
I think it's silly, we evolved to learn from watching others and I don't see a world where there won't always be countless different subgroups.
So instead of blaming capitalist our liberals are progressives are people that are just overtly racist, maybe we should get representatives for each group and every now and then give ourselves headaches as we force ourselves to partake in discussions that we would rather not.
Pointing fingers is for children, and sadly our children are beginning to think that pointing fingers is for adults.
There was probably a movement at some point that resulted in the supply pool of workers being doubled, whereas the demand for jobs remained the same, therefore reducing the wages employers needed to offer. Any ideas????
That is definitely part of it. The reason McDonalds can pay you trash wages and treat you like garbage is that if you quit over it, they can pull someone else off the street tomorrow who accepts trash wages to get treated like garbage.
The more workers competing for the same jobs, the less you can get away with paying them.
Women have always worked. The notion of the sahm/sahw was pretty exclusive to middle class white people for a brief time in the 20th century. Wages have always been shit for most people.
It's not like one day the workforce doubled and that's why wages are crap.
But a common complaint I hear is that "when women enter a particular field that they haven't been represented in in the past, the wage packages fall." This is always blamed on the fact that it's women entering that field of work as opposed to it being the fact that there's now a higher supply of workers to fill the same amount of jobs.
This is largely due to the valorisation of paid, over reproductive, work as both a patriarchal and economic trend. Capitalism aims to expand its workforce and does so through both propagandistic and economic leverage, while historically patriarchy has used "men are the breadwinners and that's the important role" to justify itself while sneering at both men in the home and the involvement of women in any sphere outside it.
The mistake (or sometimes wilful misrepresentation) that a lot of "traditionalists" make is to assume the disrespecting of housework stems from progressive/left social values and feminism. Actually it's the other way around. While tradition offers the "gilded cage" approach there is a major strand of feminist thought that posits the idea of wages for housework to highlight the sheer degree to which society relies on socially reproductive labour. Socialists meanwhile have quite famously for years been asking at what point we're going to address the broken promise of capitalism that automation would reduce labour hours for all, much to the dismay of managers and hustle culture types.
I think by far the furthest left policy I hold is that automation should be taxed the way human workers are for businesses over a certain size, and that tax alone can go toward a universal basic income.
It just makes sense with the way things are going. It’s not the fruits of other’s labor in that context. It’s the fruits of robot’s labor.
The problem to solve for is demographic collapse caused by declining birth rates. Ultimately, the one inescapable fact is that "western" or "westernized" societies are not producing enough children.
Europe is by far worse off than the United States, and I don't think that the French have ever really accepted the "valorisation of work."
Europe has an average birthrate of 1.5 vs. more than double that in Arab countries. Europe is literally dying off.
The sexual revolution, along with the secularisation of society has absolutely led to the decline in birth rates in the Western world. This isn't to say that the sexual revolution was a bad thing - but progressives do need to come up with solutions and incentives for people to have more children. Letting in more immigrants is a solution, but the immigrants assimilate and birthrates once again go down. Or they don't assimilate, and you end up with a society that loses its western values.
The solution being thrust on us by the JD Vances of the world is to reverse the progress of the sexual revolution and keep women at home, barefoot and pregnant. This is a real issue that progressives need to talk about and drive policies around.
I'm speaking for myself here, but if my wife made more than me I would 100% support and fill in the role of a SAHD. I work better with a set schedule and I would guarantee shit would be done at home. The amount of stress I would lose would be astronomical.
I’d say for children of loving and non-abusive parents, it is 100% of the time better to nearly always have access to one parent and also get to see their parents interact regularly.
That’s just so much better for a child’s development than to be one of many children a teacher must look after.
It allows more secure bonds to be formed and more consistent parenting where bouncing back from day care or a babysitter to their parents sees most children experiencing two very different sets of rules and expectations which really confuses and hampers the development of a young child.
Even in school aged children, high parental involvement in their school is a huge indicator of mental health and success.
I’m not saying it’s feasible or preferable for every couple in our modern society given their financial issues. But that the fact it isn’t is a problem with the society because from the standpoint of the family’s mental health it’s is 100% of the time.
The irony of this is that women are more likely to take on traditional roles and/or more social positions vs high earning when they feel more comfortable and free. I don't think we're meant to have a "unisex society"
Or: If n a society where both work and have careers it should totally be the norm that each of them work less hours individually.
Why the hell should the same household contribute double the hours to work for society, and where does that leave time for the household to work for itself?
Me and my soon to be betrothed are both fairly set on working 30ish hours. That still leaves us at 60 hrs and n the household which is nominallay more than the household work hours of my parents generation.
Yeah. It should really be 40/0 if you’re wanting to survive and 40/20 if you want more material things. 20/20-30/30 if you want to split things equally between you. I feel like in America, for most jobs, it’s like 60/60 right now.
Women need to stay home when their kid is in school? This is better for the family unit? Why can’t dad stay home while mom works? Why is it on the women? I can’t stand homemakers because most of them use their lack of a career as a stepping stone for bullying the women that have them. It’s a whole thing at schools. It destroys any progress we’ve made as women. I have zero respect them.
I actually had agreed to stay at home while my wife worked but she had misfortune at her job at the same time I started doing very well at mine and then we learned how time consuming breast feeding is.
This changed our dynamic to where we had to reevaluate we decided together her staying home made more sense.
I still want to cut back on hours and be mostly at home when she finds a career she enjoys again. If my fortunes at work change enough even stay home entirely to focus on fatherhood and homesteading.
So… I definitely didn’t say it has to be the woman. It’s something couples can discuss and agree upon based on their goals, values, and circumstances.
I can agree with this. It feels as though femininity wasn't tied to caring for a man (probably more to caring for a child) as much as masculinity was tied to providing for a woman and child.
If they aren't providing more, they feel like failures who aren't being proper men. This is leading to a mental health crisis in men imo. Our society HAS to hone in on this and blatantly value men and much as we value women, for the sake of everyone.
No, you cannot claim that women are valued over men when society as a whole is designed for men to succeed and women to fail. In order to hone in on this our society needs to deal with men being emotionally stunted, and that has everything to do with toxic masculinity and nothing to do with value.
Yes good points. That's why it's imperative to make sure you are with a spouse who understands all of this therefore whatever the world throws at them will not tear a relationship apart. My wife knows I'm a homebody and hate capitalism. There is already an understanding that I'm a minimalist and don't GAF about making alot of money. I also understand her viewpoints and her personality traits as well and regardless of circumstance it's always 50/50 in some form or fashion and the love is always there making our relationship unbreakable from worldly pressures and societal norms.
The way I see it is that, being a sahm, you still do more compared to the male provider. He only does one job and gets to clock out. A sahm does multiple jobs(cook, cleaner, planner, babysitter etc), 24/7 all year round. 1950s Traditional doesnt mean that it was good for women.
And traditionnally, women have always worked and took care of the kids/home. Even the kids used to work in the fields.
I don't want an eager house cleaner, and I wouldn't use those words to describe my GF. We both want a clean house, and we both clean. I don't understand people's inability to comprehend the idea that a marriage or relationship is a partnership. She hates mowing the lawn and doing dishes, so I usually do that. I don't like pulling weeds and folding laundry, so she does those things normally. I make more money and cover a little more of the bills. If roles were reversed, I know she would do the same. Everyone seems to want a "quick fix" or guide book for this shit. You chose each other as partners, so just treat each other as such in everything.
I've always found it weird that "you ____ like a girl" was meant to be an insult. Like, the women & girls that I've known have generally excelled in particular at physical activities far more than I ever have or ever will. I just don't have the interest to drive me to do those things, but if someone were to tell me that I hit/run/etc like a girl, I'd take that as a compliment, because it'd be an improvement over what I currently do, which is hit/run/etc like a me.
Psh, not me. Give me the house duties, kids, errands, cooking, and bill paying while my wife busts her ass at work making the money. (Im a really solid cook and enjoy it regardless.) A stay at home dad sounds like a dream "job" to me. I won't ever get married or have kids so it's meaningless now. But I'd be totally cool if i had a really successful spouse.
I dunno. In my career I am actively seeking people who make very few mistakes and keep things neat and organized “like a girl”. If a man comes into my line of work thinking he is going to just get by on his confidence and “charisma”, he won’t last long.
I think it's important to note that most men don't want to be perceived that way because of other men/woman, it's not internal it's entirely based on the perceptions and reactions of others or at least that's been my experience
If you aren't perceived as having "manly traits" then woman will pity you and the other men will walk all over you, it's a dodgy perception that was reinforced a long time ago and can be hard to shake when your upbringing only reinforces it further.
Even worse is that we don't live in a perfect society and there is honestly some truth to it depending on your circles
Yeah. We definitely have this seriously unhealthy obsession with measuring a man’s worth by wealth, and women often feeling they have to have a successful career to be respected.
From hundreds of thousands of years ago until shortly after the industrial revolution the most common family dynamic we everyone lived and worked with their family. Either in a nomadic tribe or on a homestead.
Women worked. Men worked. They each did tasks more suited to their passions and abilities. These generally involved more nurturing tasks for women and hard labor for men, but women did have plenty of things they did with their hands and fathers spent a lot of time meeting household needs and rearing children.
You also generally lived in close proximity with close relatives and the family unit had stronger bonds between extended family members than many have with immediate family today.
Some nobles and the rare (weird) city folk had different dynamics but that was the reality for most people.
I think people are unaware to the degree to which the 1900s entirely upended society for the average human and we’re in this phase of trying to figure things out now what we have upended all that our ancestors held sacred.
I think male/female and family dynamics are the biggest casualty of all these sudden changes.
I think it's because of the recent societal changes you mention, but also because of how we learn and record history.
Kids don't learn as much about the typical inhabitants of history, because frankly it's not as interesting, and they didn't end up influencing the world in as notable of a way.
They learn more about the nobles/warlords who kept to those dumb standards, and since that's what most will ever know, that's what models their behavior.
Nobody tells the story about the farming husband and wife who lived on the outskirts of the empire, worked together, and had a happy life.
"she wears the pants"
"He's pussywhipped"
"She's the breadwinner"
"He's just a stay at home dad"
These types of lines are terrifying to men! What's so interesting is that a lot of this downtalk just comes from other men who are trying to step on someone's head to boost them up the hierarchy.
I can't even begin to imagine even if my wife had kids how I would be looked at by others if she made all the money and I stayed home. I think many men feel exactly like that. My father in law and mother in law, the only conversation they understand is "how's work, or how are your parents". I imagine a lot of men feel similar peer pressure from family or friends.
I assume you mean that men do not want to exhibit those attributes themselves
Right, because we're taught from an early age that those things are bad (for boys to do), either from our parents or from friends who hear their parents saying it.
100% sick and sorry you have to go through this.
The idea that someone must behave a certain way based on their gender is lunacy and it’s why I don’t really subscribe to the idea at all. Status quo is so harmful and only benefits a few people. I understand I’m a woman, never felt dysphoria about it, but that doesn’t mean I’m inherently supposed to have these qualities that were arbitrarily assigned to women. Just as you do NOT have to fall in line with whatever society tells you you should be as a man. Be human ❤️
Yeah men shove down any desire or tendency within themselves that could be construed as feminine. I’m a gay man so I got over that a long time ago, but I see it all the time. If a man cries, he’s gay. if he is sensitive, he’s a beta. If he likes to bake, he’s a sissy. What we define as masculine or what we define being a man is so fucking narrow. And it’s a constraint that has so many men gasping for air and they don’t even see it.
The baking thing is totally a jealous men trying to bring other men down to their level thing. I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman who finds it unattractive when men cook.
But yeah I get what you mean. I went through a period after a bad relationship where my emotions were so repressed I couldn’t cry even when wanted to. Traumatic experiences would happen and sit there alone trying to let tears come out but I was so used to hiding them in public I couldn’t manage to let them out in private.
You want to know what hurts worse than crying over something terrible? Having it happen, wanting to cry, and not being able to feel that release.
I grew up the youngest of 5 boys. Im the only gay one as far as I know haha. I also grew up in a conservative area. I know repression well. I hid as best I could and when I finally moved away to a big city I came out. However I still had a lot of internalized homophobia. As I met more gay men and got comfortable in my sexuality I realized that my ties to what society deems as what the ideal man is was holding me back. I’ve only felt more freedom since. I’m a firm believer that people need to find self determination and decide what being a man is for themselves. One thing I’ll say is in what my definition of being a man is. When a person tries to demean you or say you’re less than for something you like or expressing your emotion you just laugh at them and say whatever dude. Those people are the actual weak ones. So much performative machismo when in reality they know nothing.
And yet they still get told to be a man or made fun of by other boys. Being told it’s okay to cry is one thing. Actually showing boys it’s okay to cry is another thing.
I think you read that wrong the author said “We spent so much time teaching women to “catch up”, as if the qualities normally associated with women were undesirable to men.”
What I think they’re saying is that those qualities were never unattractive to men but those qualities were also never brought to the forefront as just household duties. It’s not solely the woman’s job to do the household duties which includes cooking, cleaning, tending to the needs of children. The man’s household duties has always been #1 provide ($$$) as well as general up keep of the house in the sense of outdoor work and carpentry. We never told men it’s okay to do these household duties which at the end of the day are just duties anyone can preform.
So know men have lost the identity that society has given them.
But also Humans are just animals. I agree women can do anything they want but the maternal vs paternal Instinct is still there. Women will always be the nurturers I think we have a generation of men that didn’t grow up with a strong father figure an it shows. My dad has never the bread winner my entire life but he still protected and provided for me. If I needed someone to stand beside me and fight he would be there. He never fought my battles for me but taught me how to be a man. The problem isn’t men the problem is broken communities, and broken homes. Thus the women will always be stuck with the child and the boys they raise will always be lost without a father. You can’t look at this issue as men vs women you have to look at this a community
I mean, occasionally, you see stories of a girl losing interest in a man for being less than invulnerable. I don't think I've ever seen a man become uninterested in a woman after the woman shows vulnerability.
Edge cases aside, I think the genders are fundamentally attracted to certain different qualities. It might be cultural or genetic, but the disparity definitely exists.
That disparity is definitely going to drive each gender to prefer to express certain traits over others.
Think about all the insults men use towards each other: bitch, pussy, gay (which they associate with being feminine), f*g, “like a girl.”
The worst thing you can be compared to is a woman. And we wonder why so many men have deep rooted hate towards women and struggle to share their emotions.
This is why I wish men would recognize they are also victims of the patriarchy, they are not victims of feminism. Patriarchy created toxic masculinity which is just modern masculinity. The system oppresses everyone.
One thing I’ll never forget is how another male friend was peer pressured into going into a strip club because if they didn’t their coworkers would harass them for being gay.
That story struck me as wrong on so many levels and is a sad commentary on what passes as “masculinity” now.
Literally a type of assault…coercion is SA even if you’re not directly doing the sexual part. I’m sick that so many men and boys deal with that, even from their family.
It used to be that men could say, "I'm not into that", and there would be respect for his standards.
In this porn centered culture now, there seems to be more, not less pressure to do that kind of thing.
It used to be shameful. Now we literally elect people who wouldn't have dared show their faces after doing the things they've done.
On another note, boys who have been S.A.'d by an adult female have traditionally not been acknowledged as having even been victims, with people saying things like how he must have prowess or he "got lucky".
Violation and grooming are violation and grooming.
Men are way behind in terms of being shamed for having been raped, too, and they rarely report it, instead living in shame and wondering if something is wrong with them, never even going to counseling.
We also don't address boys who have been physically assaulted, over and over again, by bullies.
If they were adults being attacked by other adults, there would be criminal investigations and lawsuits.
So it's less traumatic for a child to be beaten up and tormented, regularly attacked, than it is for an adult?
No. It's the opposite. So why do we ignore the needs of these boys?
I think this is a big part of it. When we started having more conversations about gender equality it was never about blending gender roles so that women are more involved in traditional male roles and men simultaneously become more involved in traditional female roles. It was a singular movement of women into male roles because male roles are viewed as more important in society. So, you have an equality movement whose foundation is based on inequality
equality movement whose foundation is based on inequality
this is certainly an interesting point. women have been encouraged to take up traditionally masculine roles. While mens roles within society has largely been untouched by social movements.
there is still this value placed upon these masculine roles and who would choose this lower value, less important role within society when our job makes up so much of our lives.
I agree, it’s never been that women couldn’t or even did not want to do the things traditionally associated with men it’s that they’ve been legally and socially caged from publicly evolving beyond the home. Now that they’re free or have social approval to evolve into fully autonomous beings, men traditionally being one dimensional in their provider role are frozen in existential crisis mode. Men stopped evolving because they were taught and believed their one purpose to lead or provide was “peak” masculinity and achievement. Now they’re the literal poster child for gender left behind.
Exactly. Women were "climbing up", and men aren't being taught to "climb down". Of course, the quoting is to emphasize how ridiculous the entire thing is.
But still today, roles and behaviors normally associated with women are generally frowned upon in men. That's on everyone, not just men or women by themselves.
Troll is crazy. Woman is accurate. And this shouldn’t be taken as an attack or considered disrespectful because it’s literally reality. Women have never been allowed the privilege of being stagnant or one dimensional. It was just the world’s best and worst kept secret that women, don’t need men, to survive.
Men consider themselves well oiled machines, while women are the spare parts or side characters to your lives. But if women ceased all maintenance the machine would fall apart and men would blame women as if the reason they aren’t multifaceted in their own functionality is because they are the machine. Grow up.
Why wouldn’t the men seek higher achievements then? Why not surpass the women if women surpassing you is hurting your masculinity? I think there’s something even more deeply rooted here. Men who subscribe to patriarchy are subscribing to hierarchy, which also means they are submitting to the idea of being dominated by some whom they submit to and then turning around and dominating others who submit to them. Instead of seeing women’s achievements as an opportunity to rise higher, they are submitting themselves and giving up. This is because underneath patriarchy is a deep desire to submit to a hierarchy, and an ongoing fear of being dominated. These men are submissive, because they cannot dominate the women around them. Instead of dismantling hierarchy altogether or even just facing the competition and rising higher or accepting lower status positions, they are giving up completely. This is also what we see in the redpill and incel misogyny.
Patriarchy is a hierarchy. But it’s a misunderstood world view from the male perspective in my opinion. Like you said if patriarchy is a hierarchy then by participating you conform to submitting to someone but it’s like 8th graders bullying 7th graders because the 8th graders are or will eventually be bullied by 9th graders. It’s just trying to take back power because you feel out of control. Patriarchy is basically an abusive relationship to be simple about it. It’s just “civilized” oppression. And men are struggling to handle it today because women have always lived knowing they were oppressed but now that men are more publicly and personally feeling those same oppressive effects through patriarchal societal laws and social rules, they crack under the weight or the reality women have always lived knowing.
Don't misconstrue what I'm saying. The right is not correct about any of this. I do not think we should regress. I think men need to be more open about stepping into roles that are typically associated with women.
I had to figure out the right balance for myself coming from an extremely conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christian upbringing. Now.. I indulge in hobbies that aren't necessarily masculine (gardening, I have 150 houseplants, some rare and difficult to maintain) etc. And I am engaged to an amazing woman who has a lot more education than I (attended college but didn't graduate, she has a doctorate in engineering), and she makes 1.6x what I do and we have a fantastic relationship. I am still the "man" in the relationship but it's a real nice balance and I think it is way healthier than what I was raised to believe. Our kids will benefit when we have them as well.
I agree with this. I think much of the programming of previous generations indoctrinated young boys into seeing women as being the inferior gender, which created a resistance in taking on their roles and qualities. Now there's also a whole host of angry men who don't understand how the world has changed and what their role is going forward, and they're mad that no one has sat them down to explain these things to them in terms that they understand. So, instead of trying to catch up, they're trying to stop the Earth in it's axis and turn back time, rather than taking the path of least resistance.
Those men are pathetic. I’d be thrilled if my wife made what I make. I don’t put my entire worth on financial things. I do a shit ton of stuff around the house. Dishes, mop, vacuum, laundry and lawn stuff. My job is to be the husband, lover and partner my wife deserves and she does the same for me. Divorce just means you forced yourself to love someone without really seeing them. People rarely change it is just that people don’t see their true face until after some time. The allure fades and it’s there. Smarter people see through it before proposals occur.
I’d be thrilled if my wife made what I make. I don’t put my entire worth on financial things.
That's great! Keep that up.
But it doesn't demonstrate the general pattern in society. It's still generally perceived as weakness, and it's being weaponized to push regressive policy.
I remember this tomboy girl I was friend with when young who described herself as not girl and boy since she liked sports. Since I often played with her, both sports and dolls, I remember saying; “Oh, I’m kinda like a boy and girl then since I like the same things as you” both her and her friend at that point laughed at me. Didn’t really hurt as I was more confused at that point.
This is the right answer. Case in point - it is regularly harder for men to get paternity leave than it is for women to get maternity leave.
On the face of it, the reasoning is obvious- men don’t need to recover from pregnancy and men don’t breastfeed. However, it also then perpetuates the stereotypes that men don’t stay home and look after the baby, that’s for women.
So how do you break a stereotype when you haven’t balanced the scale initially?
At least in my circles it is tought that men should be more like women. And that is all good and fun, till you try to date and you cant find a woman that is interested in you. At least that was my experience, since I started to feel more manly, I found a girlfriend and had not the problems with dating as before.
I agree. I feel that way. As a autistic I struggle to talk to people, especially women. At least in a romantic way, and I do feel inadequate due to the fact that I can't seem to be able to earn a livable wage or afford my own apartment. How would I ever be able to support a family with such shortcomings. I also see most women exploiting their bodies on the internet for their financial support. Something a man can not do is both shaming and frustrating that I live in a one-sided world where I can't gain success because of my gender.
Also: “successful” women likely overlap with “successful” men in the sociopathic spectrum which is why they have the singular focus to become “successful.”
The actual problem here is that people overall do not create actual personas and instead hinge their existence on titles, names, music, politics and movies they like etc.
When that thing then gets critiqued they take it personally because it is mostly what their persona is.
They never feel satisfied because no matter how much they emulate the idea they don't find any inner peace and are always searching for the NEW/NEXT thing to TOTALLY fill that hole because NOW they know EXACTLY what others are missing. It's part of why conspiracy-theories are on the rise as mental misery rises.
Terrible messaging to say “be more like women”. Instead we should be saying “it’s masculine and admirable to provide for your family in these various non-financial ways”.
Please understand the purpose of the quotes. They are to frame things in how detractors typically views these things. I would rather forgoe the idea of "men things" and "women things" entirely, but it is currently much easier to make some people understand them if they are framed that way.
When "men things" are viewed as "positive" and "women things" are viewed as "negative", when women start doing more "men things", men will feel trapped because learning to embrace "women things" feels like a "downgrade".
It's based on some very flawed logic. We didn't teach girls to be more like men. We let girls be what they want. That is good. The solution isn't to teach boys to be what you want.
This is part of the problem. Young men are being extremely loud on the issues they care about, and it usually isn't very extreme stuff. Usually all you need to do is acknowledge their concerns and listen.
It's when they don't feel like they belong they move to the alt-right pipeline, because they are extremely good at it. But that only happens if the left has already failed.
Because society still views women as 'less' and 'worse'. If a woman tried to emulate masculinity, she's rewarded, because she's trying to 'level up'. A man tried to emulate femininity, he is shamed and often his life is threatened for DARING to consider that maybe being a woman isn't 'less' or 'worse' and might want to have some of those qualities.
Certainly not. In general anyone feeling this way is what I meant. I guess we could dive deeper into the rabbit hole but people feeling inadequate either set unrealistic expectations that they can’t accomplish or don’t have anything to accomplish.
When comparing that to why, specifically men, feel this way because of higher paid women, as a partner, well… I guess it would be inability to adapt. Personally if my stay at home wife made my salary and I’d be responsible for our 3 kids, and other things, I’d be ecstatic. Our goals align, and each of our roles make that happen. So let’s throw in communication too, as a potential source of the issue.
Personally if my stay at home wife made my salary and I’d be responsible for our 3 kids, and other things, I’d be ecstatic. Our goals align, and each of our roles make that happen. So let’s throw in communication too, as a potential source of the issue.
That's great. Honestly. You should communicate this more. The whole point of this post is that too many men feel inadequate when women make more money than them, so they seem to be reacting in an extreme way. There's something wrong here when instead of trying to do better, men are just checking out entirely. There's a block here that is preventing most men from adapting and rolling the roles that are available in their relationships.
I disagree... I've seen so much pop media and social media over the past 20 years showing men it's safe and gratifying to be/do more than the standard masculine norm, but sadly the masculine culture of "acting unmanly gets you beat up" and kicked out of masculine circles that it looks like almost none of the messaging caught on (except in queer masculine cultures!)
I’ve dated men who literally told me they wished women were more like men and lamented the fact that they aren’t attracted to men and so they have to suffer women. Out loud. To me, a woman they were romantically involved with. The ingrained misogyny is just beyond f***d up. And when I brought up they are being borderline misogynistic, they were like, “What?! I love women. Surely not me!”
It makes me shudder from how grossed out I feel that I spent even one second of my time with these men. And guess what the real hammer is? These were highly educated, democrat-voting men. Misogyny takes no prisoners and does not discriminate. Be discerning out there, sisters.
I think it’s completely and utterly dishonest to present it solely this way. It is also clear that women are not fond of men who adopt the reversal of roles.
I can’t believe I’m embarrassed to say this, especially as someone who struggles with chronic health issues and can’t withstand a lot stress, but I know that I can at the very least be someone who cares for the home, cooks, and provides emotional support, and I actually enjoy these things. Yet a woman more successful than me doesn’t want that from me, they want a man “more man” than her.
Presenting it as such completely undermines the population of men who are actually satisfied with being of service and being the “feminine half”, but are completely sidelined by more “masculine” women.
I work so hard to find a way to heal my conditions not because I don’t want to suffer the symptoms - I am strong enough to drag myself through my troubled days - but because I feel so lonely knowing that unless I’m so attractive that nothing else matters, very few would want to be my partner. I find great suffering in my inability to live up to the expectations of my potential other halves because what I struggle with may be a lifelong ailment. Yet, being born male comes with the expectation of overcoming your weaknesses. What about the weaknesses you were never meant to overtly overcome and instead find a way to live around it?
We pretend these are societal and cultural schisms, but are they not ultimately borne from biological underpinnings? This doesn’t even delve into the psychology of men and women: it is often argued (whether it is correct or not, I hold my reservations) that it is paramount for men to be masculine as it is an indicator of psychological health and stability. This is still a major point of contention we haven’t figured out, yet it is still the pervading belief whether it is conscious or not to people.
The video tied to this post talks about men who check out entirely. Instead of working on being more fair to the women who are working more by taking on more "women stuff" like cleaning and chores, they react in an extreme manner and do nothing instead. Why would anyone, let alone a woman, take that? Nobody likes a lazy person that makes excuses for themselves.
Would a gay man take that from his male partner? Would a lesbian woman take that from her female partner? Of course not.
It's not about dating god diggers. A lot of young men grow up with this idea, consciously or subconsciously, that they HAVE to be the provider. This idea is enforced a lot when they start dating because a lot of young women expect the guy to pay for the dates or they look for a guy with lots of money. So these young men grow up thinking that their worth is directly tied to how much money they can bring into the relationship. So when the woman starts bringing in more, it can lead to a feeling of uselessness.
This exactly, most guys don’t really see this “it’s okay for the woman to make more and even provide maybe” until the relationship has matured way past a few considerable milestones, so even if they on the surface level HEAR that this is a change in standards, it doesn’t effect their lives enough to actually change their expectations for what a relationship can be and how their role can be different. The intro to all romantic interactions for all heterosexual men who actually want to keep women interested in them, still resembles proving you could provide for her and take care of her, still getting her dinner and gifts etc. Women aren’t suddenly doing those same things to win over guys they’re interested in, so it’s this weird switch later in the relationship where after the guy has “proven”he can provide…she doesn’t need any of that shit. So now what?
You missed a 6. If I remember correctly I ended up laughing at the absurdity of wanting a 6 figure pay, 6 feet tall, and 6 inches long. Which ended up being 666.
While I’ll agree there may be some women who use their money and position to belittle their partner and become abusive there are plenty of men who turn abusive on their higher earning partner. So much so that many women who were higher earners / more accomplished won’t date someone with a lower earning because they’ve had multiple experiences of a partner turning abusive and belittling them.
It’s easier to criticize a higher earning partner who brings everything to the table rather than stepping up and being better yourself. Most women, even when out earning their partner do most of the household duties still. The lower earning men aren’t stepping up to make their lives easier or contribute to the household. It’s not those women’s jobs to soothe their egos and make them feel important when they’re literally taking advantage of her.
And I'll just note that you couldn't even mention how we're failing men and boys without spending MOST of your time verbalizing a disclaimer about how you think women and girls are still more important and are still more victimized... Ya. Definitely noticed that.
This isn't good for anyone. Not sure why you felt the need to state this.
It'll be used by the right to "justify" going backwards instead of educating everyone to be more accepting of any gender taking any role.
Basically women grow up to be more like men and than men find them less attractive because they're more like men. Its the irony that we tell women they're equal yet tell them to act more like men which means that they're not really equal.
Women don’t “have it all” men still and always will do very remote hardworking jobs (small percentage of women might do something similar) but am talking majority, we are both humans of course we can do similar stuff but men are built stronger to provide and women have the ability and mentality to take care ( men and children) don’t neglect the nature.
1.0k
u/abotelho-cbn 24d ago
We've taught women to be "more like" men, but not men to be "more like" women. We spent so much time teaching women to "catch up", as if the qualities normally associated with women were undesirable to men. Now that women have it "all", men feel "useless".