[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

So Neil Strauss did write a second book "The Truth" a couple of years later. It's supposed to be about the fallout in his life and others of being in the PUA community. I haven't read it (maybe someone can tell me if it's worth it) but he pretty much dumps all over how bad pua emotionally is for you.

LarryC wrote:

Many men do not have appropriate role models or structures to learn from or hang their hats on so they were looking. Redpill and PUA were there to exploit them, but on the whole, those approaches were always doomed to failure.

I was raised by a pack of wild hippies. Mostly women. I didn’t have a single male role model who provided an example of the proper way to behave as a man. I witnessed way more domestic violence than any child should have to tolerate. Which, by the way is none. I mean, zero tolerance on that sh*t.

I don’t have anything constructive to say. That sh*t makes me really f*cking sad. I haven’t thought about that in a long time. f*ck!

Kids need men in their lives like the guy in the commercial who tells them, “This isn’t the way we solve things.”

This is a good read.

Tablet: Birth of the Cool Guy

Jayhawker wrote:

This is a good read.

Tablet: Birth of the Cool Guy

I dunno, this just smacks of criticising others for being "white knights" on twitter.

Is there a cadre of guys out there pretending to be nice guys in the hope of getting their dicks wet? Sure. Is there a countable population of guys performing feminism for nefarious ends? I don't see it.

There is some legit criticism to be made of some of the examples in that article but I'm unconvinced it adds up to a population of Cool Guys any more than Cool Girls is anything other than a caricature either.

There's no Cool Guy. There is Nice Guy. That's the guy who will do "nice things for women" and then expect sexual favors in return. That's not new.

DanB wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

This is a good read.

Tablet: Birth of the Cool Guy

I dunno, this just smacks of criticising others for being "white knights" on twitter.

Is there a cadre of guys out there pretending to be nice guys in the hope of getting their dicks wet? Sure. Is there a countable population of guys performing feminism for nefarious ends? I don't see it.

There is some legit criticism to be made of some of the examples in that article but I'm unconvinced it adds up to a population of Cool Guys any more than Cool Girls is anything other than a caricature either.

This isn't exactly how I read it, in that I don't think they do it to get women. However yes I know a lot of men that are "woke" that talk a big game but absolutely crumble whenever they're pushed on their own behavior. The sexist Bernie Bros are a great example of these kinds of men.

That said I thought the article was kind of dumb and the comparison to the Cool Girl is entirely off the mark.

Edit: also Cool Girl isn't a caricature. It's an expectation.

DanB wrote:

There is some legit criticism to be made of some of the examples in that article but I'm unconvinced it adds up to a population of Cool Guys any more than Cool Girls is anything other than a caricature either.

Sure, perhaps not in the extreme manner the Cool Girl is described. But yes, I saw it many times in the big firm, where women would carry on "alpha male" style mannerisms to "fit in" (when you worked with such women, they didn't bother keeping that rubbish up).

In the same way, the Cool Guy thing is perhaps taken to its extreme by framing it in relation to high profile men who say one thing and do another; it applies to all of us when we acknowledge feminism but we don't do more than pay lip service to it in how we carry out our lives.

DanB wrote:

Is there a cadre of guys out there pretending to be nice guys in the hope of getting their dicks wet? Sure. Is there a countable population of guys performing feminism for nefarious ends? I don't see it.

Two things:

1: I don't see a difference between those two categories at all.

2: f*ck yes they exist. Poll your friends who date guys. See how many of them have a story for you.

I'm not sure it's useful to conflate the Cool Girl caricature with the masculine corporate behaviours. Yes they are both seemingly motivated by a desire to 'fit in' but I think context is important in thinking through what it mean, what the practice actually looks like and how it is resolved.

Jonman wrote:

2: f*ck yes they exist. Poll your friends who date guys. See how many of them have a story for you.

I am 100% sure if I ask my female friends they'll all have stories of feminist identified men whose daily practice did not live up to their declared feminism when in relationships (e.g. childcare and housework falling principally on the woman). But I'm not convinced that is the same as those guy's feminism being performative. The overwhelming majority of guys who declare themselves feminists I'm sure are sincere. That's certainly been my experience. But just saying you're feminist isn't the same as magically undoing all the behaviours and assumptions society has landed you with, that stuff takes work and I'm wholly unsurprised that many folk who mean will don't always measure up.

In 10(ish) years of moving in quite radically feminist communities I can think of one (maybe two) instances where someone we knows feminism turned out to be insincere and performative.

And I do think there is a useful distinction between 'nice guy' thinking (which I think all men are affected by to some degree) and people who would go out of their way to perform feminism. The article states that Cool Guy behaviour is about co-opting feminist spaces for the sake of self-aggrandizement and at the expense of the women. And I do think that is different to the societal notion and expectation that performing nice/chivalrous acts gets you rewarded with sex.

DanB wrote:

In 10(ish) years of moving in quite radically feminist communities I can think of one (maybe two) instances where someone we knows feminism turned out to be insincere and performative.

The two similarly radical feminist communites I'm attached to have both had to develop formal written procedures to deal with people who turn out to be abusive assholes, despite at first coming off like right-on folks. Because it keeps happening.

At a certain level, isn't jumping up and down and declaring you're a great feminist just as weird as saying "I don't kick kittens or push old people down stairs?"

jdzappa wrote:

At a certain level, isn't jumping up and down and declaring you're a great feminist just as weird as saying "I don't kick kittens or push old people down stairs?"

I think more it's not that different than declaring yourself liberal or conservative.
The person is setting the label and using that to define themself rather than defining themself and then seeing if a label applies, most likely imperfectly.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

At a certain level, isn't jumping up and down and declaring you're a great feminist just as weird as saying "I don't kick kittens or push old people down stairs?"

I think more it's not that different than declaring yourself liberal or conservative.
The person is setting the label and using that to define themself rather than defining themself and then seeing if a label applies, most likely imperfectly.

I think we're in a time of transition between the two, from the latter into the former. I think it accompanies a larger transition, from "my personal political ideology is sound" to "I am assisting in dismantling structures bigger than any one person." Your stance on the topic (if you're not part of the oppressed group) is not your story, it's someone else's story where you play a part.

Really though, I'd say *most* labels are going through that same transition now. There's not much left to figure out on the big political questions--most of those have definite answers at this point, and if you're still one one side of them you're on the side of hate.

It does make for important questions though, like how to translate understanding the systemic down into the individual. As much as this is about collective action, we still live a lot of our lives down at the level of individuals. The personal is political, so how do you make the political personal?

jdzappa wrote:

At a certain level, isn't jumping up and down and declaring you're a great feminist just as weird as saying "I don't kick kittens or push old people down stairs?"

That was my understanding from the article. The "cool guy" expects (demands) to be accepted and praised by women because they say the right things and act the right way (which is really just basic decency). It's not quite the same as "nice guys" because they expect sex for not being actively horrible. The "cool guy" is after feminist cookies with the hope they can cash them in for the benefit of the doubt if (when) their sh*tty behavior is found out.

IMAGE(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8c970db86e5891da4d20788e7153a722/tumblr_plt0yvague1tqnhks_540.jpg)

Gents, I’d be interested in some thoughts about something that has been banging around in my head.

My wife was reading an article to me about all of the things that women due to keep a household going and to pick up the slack in a relationship that the man is not providing. This was of course intended as a “hey ahole, do better”.

It got me thinking, besides the chromosomal material needed to carry on the species, what do men (in the “traditional” sense) bring to both a relationship and society?

Men are physically stronger but outside of a very few jobs (like NFL offensive tackle) there aren’t many physical tasks that women couldn’t do equally well. We are less emotionally available, less nurturing, do worse in school. We are worse at multitasking and are responsible for nearly all of the violence, murder and war in the world.

Honestly I don’t know what redeeming qualities our sex brings in any facet of society. If women could reproduce without us, the world would be a far far better place if all males ceased to exist. I’m serious in that I’m hoping my daughter is a lesbian to reduce her risk of a violent abusive relationship.

Maybe a better definition of a radical feminist for men is not just to support women but to try to emulate them?

What redeeming qualities does having dark hair bring? How about blue eyes? To me those are bullsh*t questions which have nothing to do with what you as an individual can bring to a relationship.

I have genitals and hormones like everyone else on the planet. Maybe those provide some difference, but even those vary depending on the person. My own unique skills, wiring, tastes, etc are far more meaningful.

EDIT: In short - I'm not going to tell anyone what they can bring to a relationship simply based on the fact that they're a man. I wouldn't do that for a woman either. Down that way lies a load of crap.

Of course there is individual variability and different people bring different qualities to any relationship regardless of gender.

What I mean is the male archetype. There is a lot of discussion about what it means to be a good man. But is there anything good about the male gender role even if you take away what we would all consider toxic masculinity? And yes you can say being a man is no different than saying someone has brown eyes. But it is different. People with brown eyes aren’t responsible with 99% of the heinous crap that happens in this world. Men are. No other unique cultural, racial or biological group. Just men.

DocJoe wrote:

Honestly I don’t know what redeeming qualities our sex brings in any facet of society. If women could reproduce without us, the world would be a far far better place if all males ceased to exist. I’m serious in that I’m hoping my daughter is a lesbian to reduce her risk of a violent abusive relationship.

Maybe a better definition of a radical feminist for men is not just to support women but to try to emulate them?

Docjoe, I'll be honest here, a number of your posts read to me like there's something you're struggling with and you're externalizing it to be more about "men" then really taking a look at what may be something more personal. Going from "my wife wants me to help out more around the house" to talking about the world being better off without a particular sex represented I think you've tipped over the edge.

Just as a thought experiment, replacing "we" with "I". It's something I do sometimes when I'm writing or saying a lot of "we" statements.

I'm physically stronger but outside of a very few jobs (like NFL offensive tackle) there aren’t many physical tasks that women couldn’t do equally well. I'm less emotionally available, less nurturing, do worse in school. I'm worse at multitasking and responsible for nearly all of the violence, murder and war in the world.

Honestly I don’t know what redeeming qualities I bring in any facet of society.

There's a lot to be said about how men are socialized to value certain qualities and tamp down others. It's possible to encounter these barriers in ourselves and cultivate qualities we admire in the women around us. I don't think the loathing (both self and external) piece is helpful. If your wife wants you to do more around the house, it's not always just a call to "do better" which I think is usually my first reaction to that kind of feedback. It can also mean "I feel like we're not in this together. We're not attuned." Chores (or sex life) are symptoms we often point to when there's a huge, unexplored feeling space in there.

Sorry, feel like I'm rambling a bit and making more assumptions than I should. I've had those feelings of "my gender sucks" too and I think it's a phase, but it gets in the way of actually growing.

Docjoe wrote:

It got me thinking, besides the chromosomal material needed to carry on the species, what do men (in the “traditional” sense) bring to both a relationship and society?

This (and the rest of the post) feels an awful lot like putting women on a pedestal, and dangerously so. Women aren't magical, and men aren't sacs of bad. This is absolutely not notallmen-ing. To suggest that a gender has no societal value is very narrowly defining gender and value.

(Also, I suspect there are an awful lot of men unconnected with Western male-ness who would be perturbed to be summarily removed from the planet because your wife read an article. )

Docjoe wrote:

Of course there is individual variability and different people bring different qualities to any relationship regardless of gender.

What I mean is the male archetype. There is a lot of discussion about what it means to be a good man. But is there anything good about the male gender role even if you take away what we would all consider toxic masculinity? And yes you can say being a man is no different than saying someone has brown eyes. But it is different. People with brown eyes aren’t responsible with 99% of the heinous crap that happens in this world. Men are. No other unique cultural, racial or biological group. Just men.

To me, the fact that there is a male gender role at all is a symptom of toxic masculinity. I don't care if some men fit into whatever that idealized role happens to be (which we could waste time trying to define - but I consider to be pointlessly undefinable). I don't care if some women do too (which some do!). It's the expectation that all men are blah, and all women are other blah which I personally find untruthful and distasteful.

I know this is a reactionary take on my part and of course we aren't going to get rid of men. But this morning we just were notified by my daughter's school that a high school senior (male of course) was just caught secretly photographing 6-8th grade girls in the bathroom and locker room. So waiting to find out if videos/pics of my daughter are part of the group and if they've been uploaded to the internet.

And at work, another female told me that her husband is cheating on her last week. In my 20 years as an oncologist, it is hard for me to think of a single case of a female partner leaving her husband/boyfriend after a cancer diagnosis. When a woman is diagnosed, it happens all of the time.

And I see all of the bad crap in the media every day and all of it - I mean literally all of it is men. And not just in Western society but the abuse and lack of rights of women in the Middle East, the female gang rape of girls in India and Africa. I don't know there are a whole lot of places on this planet where there aren't examples of men doing terrible crap or frankly any place where there are widespread reports of women who are.

So maybe I am putting women on a pedestal but I think they deserve to be there.

OK end of irrational rant.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

It got me thinking, besides the chromosomal material needed to carry on the species, what do men (in the “traditional” sense) bring to both a relationship and society?

This (and the rest of the post) feels an awful lot like putting women on a pedestal, and dangerously so. Women aren't magical, and men aren't sacs of bad. This is absolutely not notallmen-ing. To suggest that a gender has no societal value is very narrowly defining gender and value.

That's the simple way to think of the question. The more difficult one is to think "if the gender 'male' went away, how much would be lost and how much would be gained?" Especially if gender is non-binary--you can still have gender without having men.

(Also, I suspect there are an awful lot of men unconnected with Western male-ness who would be perturbed to be summarily removed from the planet because your wife read an article. )

eh, not sure it's that much better anywhere else in a society that is both large as and as engaged in the world system as the societies we're talking about here. Maybe these dudes, but that leads to the question of whether you can scale societies like that up.

However, the practical question is that The Question Is (mostly) Moot: 'men' as a gender aren't going anywhere anytime soon. There may come a day when there's a fork in the road of making the world a better place at the expense of the continued existence of 'men' but that day is far enough in the future I don't know if it's helpful to pre-plan for it.

Yes. Women do have to do more and put up with more in this world. Absolutely. My previous statement about assumed gender roles helps point to why. It's when we start treating each other with equal dignity and stop applying expectations based on our exterior appearance that we're able to get real with one another on a more personal level - which to me is a requirement for the deeper relationships we're talking about.

I also advise not playing a character. Be real. Make mistakes. Learn who you are. Don't sneak.

LouZiffer wrote:

I also advise not playing a character.

I like this. Don't do things because "it's what men do", or because "it's what men should do", or even because "not enough men do it". Do things because they are what you do.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

I also advise not playing a character.

I like this. Don't do things because "it's what men do", or because "it's what men should do", or even because "not enough men do it". Do things because they are what you do.

That's a lovely little story, Lou.

I was chatting with Karla a bit about today's posts and she pointed out that often the first stage of truly encountering any form of our privilege are feelings shame and self-loathing. It's a difficult but a healthy part of the process. Once you truly start to see it, you see it everywhere and it gets really big in your mind. At its worst it can freeze you up, shut you down or put you in an aggressive place where you want to eradicate every outward trace of it so you don't have to feel that way anymore.

But when we think about how we teach kids new things, we don't encourage anyone to use shame and guilt as primary teaching tools. It doesn't even work with our pets. So I think it's important to work with those feelings, they're good signs something is wrong in a given situation and needs some deeper attention. But at some point those feelings need to be managed so you can step forward and put your privilege to some good use since you're stuck with it anyway.

Maybe the really tough question is whether it's worth it to *men* for there to be a male gender if it's that self-toxic. I'm fine with it, but I also recognize I got very lucky. Most didn't.

Again, as a practical matter it's kinda moot: (edit) that identity isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But it does make you wonder if 'fixing' toxic masculinity is less like a refurbishment and more like a controlled demolition, though.

FWIW I can see multiple ways in which men can be beneficial to their partner and family:

1. Sexual and general physical intimacy
2. Two incomes - definitely nothing to sneeze at in the modern economy
3. Extra pair of hands for child rearing - yes that means stepping up but an involved father is a force multiplier
4. A positive male role model who can counteract some of the negative stereotypes in pop culture

This is not to say single moms or same sex couples are deficient - only that men can be far from worthless.

Regarding chores and child rearing, I see two problems. On one hand, men do need to step up. When my wife spent several years working weekends I got a crash course in taking care of my son and have done my best to stay involved since then.

But there is also the problem of insane cleaning and parenting standards. Middle and upper middle class moms are still judged by cleaning standards of the 1950s when mom was a full time home maker. And then you add in attachment parenting where moms and dads are expected to do hundreds of extra hours of work per year than past generations. Maybe the first step is to look at all the household and parenting tasks and figure out which are actually required versus attempts to impress people we don’t even like.

jdzappa wrote:

FWIW I can see multiple ways in which men can be beneficial to their partner and family:

1. Sexual and general physical intimacy
2. Two incomes - definitely nothing to sneeze at in the modern economy
3. Extra pair of hands for child rearing - yes that means stepping up but an involved father is a force multiplier
4. A positive male role model who can counteract some of the negative stereotypes in pop culture

This is not to say single moms or same sex couples are deficient - only that men can be far from worthless.

I don't think the point was that all men are worthless and you could replace them with, like, a stuffed animal or something. I think the question was more like "replace all male people with a non-male person, and is the world a better place or a worse place?" (edit) The middle two can be met by non-male people, the first one means there's some disappointment, and the fourth...that's an interesting question, because it makes men sound like the Arnie Terminator in T2: Judgement Day.