'Let’s call it “alpha-victim masculinity.”'
July 28, 2024 10:16 AM Subscribe
What is America's gender war actually about? (Derek Thompson for The Atlantic)
> The left has become more adept at shaming toxic masculinity
You mean, "look what you're making us do?'
posted by Rat Spatula at 10:39 AM on July 28 [41 favorites]
You mean, "look what you're making us do?'
posted by Rat Spatula at 10:39 AM on July 28 [41 favorites]
Having just watched the reading rainbow documentary last night, I will suggest that Levar Burton is a pinnacle of non toxic masculinity.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:39 AM on July 28 [66 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 10:39 AM on July 28 [66 favorites]
I recently caught a glimpse of a program that stated that an experiment was conducted with little boys and girls in a play room, where everyone was told to play with any toy except the toy horse on the main table. They reported that boys typically had to be restrained from grabbing the horse while girls kept looking back to their mothers to seek approval to approach the horse. If true it likely shows no difference in boys and girls except their level of cultural subordination.
posted by Brian B. at 10:42 AM on July 28 [6 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 10:42 AM on July 28 [6 favorites]
For its part, the GOP plays host to several visions of masculinity, awkwardly mushed together. Trump is a thrice-married Lothario who combines the showmanship of a pro-wrestling heel with the wounded rage of a country-club rejectee. The result is a potent mix of cosmetic macho bluster and marrow-deep elite resentment. For the purpose of containing this multitude in a phrase, let’s call it “alpha-victim masculinity.”
I think this is a useful point to highlight — i.e., that current Republican rhetoric appeals specifically to men who feel aggrieved and insecure in their particular view of masculinity. They’re a particularly obnoxious bunch, but individuals may be reachable by people close to them, and understanding that dynamic might help with discouraging them. For example, my purely vibes-based opinion is that the recent mockery of J.D. Vance is already substantially reducing morale and enthusiasm in that group.
left has become more adept at shaming toxic masculinity than at showcasing a positive masculinity that is distinct from femininity.
Aaaargh. I have complex feelings about how progressives approach the question of masculinity, but in the context of this particular article it’s just the author trying to inject weak both-sides-ism and warrants only disdain IMO.
But also, fwiw as a site we just had a long, detailed, nuanced discussion of exactly that problem. By some miracle, it actually turned out to be a good conversation despite a rocky start, and unlike many other similar conversations on this site. If anyone feels the need to get into that topic based on frustration with this article, I’d highly encourage reading that discussion instead. ;-)
posted by learning from frequent failure at 11:02 AM on July 28 [28 favorites]
I think this is a useful point to highlight — i.e., that current Republican rhetoric appeals specifically to men who feel aggrieved and insecure in their particular view of masculinity. They’re a particularly obnoxious bunch, but individuals may be reachable by people close to them, and understanding that dynamic might help with discouraging them. For example, my purely vibes-based opinion is that the recent mockery of J.D. Vance is already substantially reducing morale and enthusiasm in that group.
left has become more adept at shaming toxic masculinity than at showcasing a positive masculinity that is distinct from femininity.
Aaaargh. I have complex feelings about how progressives approach the question of masculinity, but in the context of this particular article it’s just the author trying to inject weak both-sides-ism and warrants only disdain IMO.
But also, fwiw as a site we just had a long, detailed, nuanced discussion of exactly that problem. By some miracle, it actually turned out to be a good conversation despite a rocky start, and unlike many other similar conversations on this site. If anyone feels the need to get into that topic based on frustration with this article, I’d highly encourage reading that discussion instead. ;-)
posted by learning from frequent failure at 11:02 AM on July 28 [28 favorites]
The left has become more adept at shaming toxic masculinity than at showcasing a positive masculinity that is distinct from femininity
I've just skimmed the article so maybe this isn't fair, but isn't the very root of toxic masculinity the need to be destinct from the feminine?
Isn't the whole point that people aren't [traditional traits associated with] masculine or [traditional traits associated with] feminine but whole-ass people who are combinations of those traits?
Or is this my nonbinaryness getting in the way of my understanding how other people work?
posted by Zumbador at 11:18 AM on July 28 [61 favorites]
I've just skimmed the article so maybe this isn't fair, but isn't the very root of toxic masculinity the need to be destinct from the feminine?
Isn't the whole point that people aren't [traditional traits associated with] masculine or [traditional traits associated with] feminine but whole-ass people who are combinations of those traits?
Or is this my nonbinaryness getting in the way of my understanding how other people work?
posted by Zumbador at 11:18 AM on July 28 [61 favorites]
Positive masculinity isn't loud or flashy. It doesn't brag. It's happening all around us but we don't notice it. Perhaps we've become so attuned to the yelling we don't hear the whispers.
posted by tommasz at 11:18 AM on July 28 [37 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 11:18 AM on July 28 [37 favorites]
My favorite example of "positive masculinity" is the manga/anime Way of the Househusband. Positive masculinity must always be transgressive in some way, because traditional masculinity is so tied in to and co-opted by patriarchy. Someone like Mr. Rogers cuts against male stereotypes of being hard and unfeeling. In certain circles he's mocked for his "unmanliness," but he's a great example of a man just being a good human. I have never been able to figure out what positive character traits are supposed to be "masculine." All the positive character traits I know don't feel "masculine" at all and all the masculine-coded ones I know tend toward toxic.
So guys, get out there, get therapy, be nice, wear skirts, whatever. Don't be a dick if you can help it, and if you are, apologize. Seems masculine enough to me.
posted by rikschell at 11:29 AM on July 28 [18 favorites]
So guys, get out there, get therapy, be nice, wear skirts, whatever. Don't be a dick if you can help it, and if you are, apologize. Seems masculine enough to me.
posted by rikschell at 11:29 AM on July 28 [18 favorites]
But also, fwiw as a site we just had a long, detailed, nuanced discussion of exactly that problem. By some miracle, it actually turned out to be a good conversation despite a rocky start, and unlike many other similar conversations on this site.
learning from frequent failure
Oh, I feel the exact opposite about that thread. It was almost a textbook illustration of the problems in trying to discuss this topic in progressive-leaning spaces (starting with vehement disagreement over whether there's any problem in the first place). And the exact same problems that are already cropping up here.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:32 AM on July 28 [11 favorites]
learning from frequent failure
Oh, I feel the exact opposite about that thread. It was almost a textbook illustration of the problems in trying to discuss this topic in progressive-leaning spaces (starting with vehement disagreement over whether there's any problem in the first place). And the exact same problems that are already cropping up here.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:32 AM on July 28 [11 favorites]
It's also bizarre to always see these things framed in terms of "responsibility" or "fault" or who owes what to whom. It's a simple matter of practicality.
If a boy or young man is looking for guidance with their life and from the left they get, "Quit whining, shitheel, it's not my job to teach you" and from the right they get, "Quit whining, pussy, I'll teach you how to man up" it's no wonder that they gravitate towards the Tates or Rogans of the world who are at least offering a hand.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:36 AM on July 28 [23 favorites]
If a boy or young man is looking for guidance with their life and from the left they get, "Quit whining, shitheel, it's not my job to teach you" and from the right they get, "Quit whining, pussy, I'll teach you how to man up" it's no wonder that they gravitate towards the Tates or Rogans of the world who are at least offering a hand.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:36 AM on July 28 [23 favorites]
All this positive [gender] stuff really confuses me, because surely we're not saying "THESE traits are FEMININE and women naturally have them, even if they have other traits as well and THESE traits are MASCULINE and men naturally have THEM"?
Because if it's just that society tells us that women like nurturing and men like killing, and women like shopping and men like drinking and chasing girls, that doesn't seem like a thing where "positive masculinity" is a solution.
"Positive masculinity" doesn't really seem like the same thing as "being a good man", because it's not clear to me that a good man is really that different from a good woman - my father is a good man, and one of the good things he did was to care for my mother extremely patiently and kindly during her decade-long illness before she died. He dressed her, he took her on walks, he amused her, in the end he had to help her in the bathroom. He was nurturing. He was caring. He was present. He did all those things that are supposed to be "woman" things. The only reason this stands out is because we have a society where men are encouraged to leave their ill partners rather than care for them.
My dad is a good man and I'd hold him up as a positive example of How To Man, but not for anything that a woman couldn't or wouldn't do.
It's something I try to puzzle out as I try to think of why I am transmasculine - what do I mean that I "feel like a man"? I am confident that whatever that means, it does not mean "I feel like I have a different kind of morality than women do".
posted by Frowner at 11:38 AM on July 28 [71 favorites]
Because if it's just that society tells us that women like nurturing and men like killing, and women like shopping and men like drinking and chasing girls, that doesn't seem like a thing where "positive masculinity" is a solution.
"Positive masculinity" doesn't really seem like the same thing as "being a good man", because it's not clear to me that a good man is really that different from a good woman - my father is a good man, and one of the good things he did was to care for my mother extremely patiently and kindly during her decade-long illness before she died. He dressed her, he took her on walks, he amused her, in the end he had to help her in the bathroom. He was nurturing. He was caring. He was present. He did all those things that are supposed to be "woman" things. The only reason this stands out is because we have a society where men are encouraged to leave their ill partners rather than care for them.
My dad is a good man and I'd hold him up as a positive example of How To Man, but not for anything that a woman couldn't or wouldn't do.
It's something I try to puzzle out as I try to think of why I am transmasculine - what do I mean that I "feel like a man"? I am confident that whatever that means, it does not mean "I feel like I have a different kind of morality than women do".
posted by Frowner at 11:38 AM on July 28 [71 favorites]
I really get why people feel both profoundly disappointed by OR encouraged by the masculinity thread, and I also encourage everyone reading this thread to have a look at that one. It reminds me strongly of the emotional labor Big Thread but like, not in the sense that you get to emerge with hard won insights. But it gave me a much clearer understanding of the problem and has made me a better listener to my male friends who e.g. bemoan the lack of spaces for dads or proliferation of spaces for moms only. In the past I would have at least thought to myself if not said "well, then maybe men should take responsibility for organizing some spaces themselves." Now....well, at least I'll focus on listening and building empathy, while understand why not every woman can do the same.
posted by heyforfour at 11:44 AM on July 28 [11 favorites]
posted by heyforfour at 11:44 AM on July 28 [11 favorites]
Really good relevant thread on Bluesky, from @NeolithicSheep, trans dude & farmer. This isn't the whole thread; it and the comments are well worth reading.
There is also a widespread tendency to attribute any pro-social traits or behaviors any given man (defined broadly and inclusively) exhibits to him as an individual while attributing anti-social (or just annoying) things he does to his identity as a man/masculinity and like. What a fucking trap.posted by Pallas Athena at 11:56 AM on July 28 [49 favorites]
Because then when men (defined broadly etc etc) are left with confusion and struggles to define their identity there is no help for them outside of the right wing and conservatism which has a very clear and comforting vision for them.
Consider that rejecting toxic masculinity means building an identity in opposition to it, a pro-social and nurturing masculinity that builds community and connection, and that pro-social behaviors are just as masculine as anti-social ones.
But at this point in my life I'm [...] annoyed as fuck that when I take care of a tiny lamb people think that's because I'm a good person and when I'm angry that's because I'm a man and no. No absolutely not.
If I'm a man when I'm angry then I'm a man when I'm caring and kind. If I'm a man when I annoy you then I'm also a man when I do something you like. And that goes for every other man you know, regardless of transness, disability, race, religion, or sexuality.
In 1995, women were just 1 percentage point more likely to say they were pro-choice than men. Today women are 14 points more likely to say they’re pro-choice—the highest margin on record.
Yikes. I know I live in an academic liberal bubble, but I don't think that characterizes the people I associate with.
As to the contrasting views of each side on what masculinity might mean... I guess I'll offer up that I've been interested/bemused by the repeated meme I see of the non-toxic masculinity triad being made of Bob Ross, Fred Rogers, and Steve Irwin. Levar Burton (see above) often gets brought up as an example, too. That's great, but I don't know how relatable they are for people under the age of 40 or 50. There are other examples out there, maybe worth thinking about.
posted by cupcakeninja at 12:13 PM on July 28 [2 favorites]
Yikes. I know I live in an academic liberal bubble, but I don't think that characterizes the people I associate with.
As to the contrasting views of each side on what masculinity might mean... I guess I'll offer up that I've been interested/bemused by the repeated meme I see of the non-toxic masculinity triad being made of Bob Ross, Fred Rogers, and Steve Irwin. Levar Burton (see above) often gets brought up as an example, too. That's great, but I don't know how relatable they are for people under the age of 40 or 50. There are other examples out there, maybe worth thinking about.
posted by cupcakeninja at 12:13 PM on July 28 [2 favorites]
What is a masculine trait? Can a man be nurturing and supportive? I think if a man is to have value to society, the answer is yes. A man who is a mentor, a man who is a father, a man who is a big brother -- I don't think anyone would hear these descriptors and think, "Well, that's not very manly;" on the contrary, I think we tend to think that's what a man should be about. But a woman can be a mentor, can be a mother, can be a big sister, and I don't think anyone would say, "Well, that's bad; that's not what I think of when I think of a woman." They're the same thing.
So I wonder what traits we talk about that are specifically seen as masculine that we read as toxic. Maybe they are toxic! But if it makes anybody feel better, maybe they aren't specifically masculine, really; maybe they just look a certain way when men do them, or have a greater impact because of the power imbalance between men and women in our society. I know this is probably a very naive point of view, but I feel like it's a mistake to say, "Men are like this, and women are like this." If we accept that the behaviors we don't like and the behaviors we do like can exist in anyone, irrespective of gender, then I think it will be simpler to just address the behavior.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:18 PM on July 28 [12 favorites]
So I wonder what traits we talk about that are specifically seen as masculine that we read as toxic. Maybe they are toxic! But if it makes anybody feel better, maybe they aren't specifically masculine, really; maybe they just look a certain way when men do them, or have a greater impact because of the power imbalance between men and women in our society. I know this is probably a very naive point of view, but I feel like it's a mistake to say, "Men are like this, and women are like this." If we accept that the behaviors we don't like and the behaviors we do like can exist in anyone, irrespective of gender, then I think it will be simpler to just address the behavior.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:18 PM on July 28 [12 favorites]
but isn't the very root of toxic masculinity the need to be destinct from the feminine?
I appreciate you voicing this, because it sort of gets at at least some of the reasons why this topic is hard for people to discuss. I'd be curious to read a well-researched piece on the etymology of the phrase - but I suspect (from my own, no doubt fallible, memory) there has been quite a bit of semantic shift here. Most recently by right-wing influencers saying something to the effect of "The crazy radical left thinks all masculinity is toxic - my guy, that means they hate you!" Which is mostly bunk, but there is also a kernel of truth there too. The star of the football team with a strong jawline who loves lifting weights and playing beer pong with his bros isn't the problem,* per se. The problem is that for a long time we lived (and in many ways, still live) in a society that was structured to reward a very specific expression of masculinity, and surprise surprise, many men for whom that expression of masculinity came naturally to began to not only think of themselves as superior to women but also other men (as many have pointed out, homophobia and misogyny are at least cousins if not siblings). Earlier discussions of toxic masculinity (if memory serves) were more nuanced and clear to connect it with larger structural problems (i.e. rape culture), but at least in the last few years I've seen it more loosely applied to stereotypical masculinity more broadly, which I don't think is particularly helpful - in an ideal world, the star of the football team would be no more popular and his masculinity deemed no more 'legitimate' as the theater nerd. That future is possible without demonizing the football star. The problem is the entitlement, homophobia, and misogyny - not the stereotypically masculine traits.
*And of course, good to point out that the men who inhabit a lot of the activities/aesthetics that get coded as hyper-masculine are more wide ranging than the stereotype. As a teacher, sure, I've encountered some jocks that fit the mold perfectly, but often these young men also have a niche interest that doesn't quite fit the mold - I'd still say it's not productive to reward one interest over the other as more 'progressive' or whatever.
posted by coffeecat at 12:25 PM on July 28 [22 favorites]
I appreciate you voicing this, because it sort of gets at at least some of the reasons why this topic is hard for people to discuss. I'd be curious to read a well-researched piece on the etymology of the phrase - but I suspect (from my own, no doubt fallible, memory) there has been quite a bit of semantic shift here. Most recently by right-wing influencers saying something to the effect of "The crazy radical left thinks all masculinity is toxic - my guy, that means they hate you!" Which is mostly bunk, but there is also a kernel of truth there too. The star of the football team with a strong jawline who loves lifting weights and playing beer pong with his bros isn't the problem,* per se. The problem is that for a long time we lived (and in many ways, still live) in a society that was structured to reward a very specific expression of masculinity, and surprise surprise, many men for whom that expression of masculinity came naturally to began to not only think of themselves as superior to women but also other men (as many have pointed out, homophobia and misogyny are at least cousins if not siblings). Earlier discussions of toxic masculinity (if memory serves) were more nuanced and clear to connect it with larger structural problems (i.e. rape culture), but at least in the last few years I've seen it more loosely applied to stereotypical masculinity more broadly, which I don't think is particularly helpful - in an ideal world, the star of the football team would be no more popular and his masculinity deemed no more 'legitimate' as the theater nerd. That future is possible without demonizing the football star. The problem is the entitlement, homophobia, and misogyny - not the stereotypically masculine traits.
*And of course, good to point out that the men who inhabit a lot of the activities/aesthetics that get coded as hyper-masculine are more wide ranging than the stereotype. As a teacher, sure, I've encountered some jocks that fit the mold perfectly, but often these young men also have a niche interest that doesn't quite fit the mold - I'd still say it's not productive to reward one interest over the other as more 'progressive' or whatever.
posted by coffeecat at 12:25 PM on July 28 [22 favorites]
Perhaps we've become so attuned to the yelling we don't hear the whispers.
I agree. I think this is a useful POV when you combine it with the observations in, e.g., The Great Manliness Flip-Flop (also in The Atlantic).
The people that are trying most loudly to define masculinity venerate the image (Greatest Generation, mafioso omerta, cowboys, etc.) while inverting the behavior. They're not somehow emulating traditional "feminine virtues" - they are instead truly negating every value they claim to hold.
If there's something valuable in masculinity, traditional or otherwise, it's not going to come from people who are insulated from almost every hardship but think that they are martyrs to equality.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 1:09 PM on July 28 [8 favorites]
I agree. I think this is a useful POV when you combine it with the observations in, e.g., The Great Manliness Flip-Flop (also in The Atlantic).
The people that are trying most loudly to define masculinity venerate the image (Greatest Generation, mafioso omerta, cowboys, etc.) while inverting the behavior. They're not somehow emulating traditional "feminine virtues" - they are instead truly negating every value they claim to hold.
If there's something valuable in masculinity, traditional or otherwise, it's not going to come from people who are insulated from almost every hardship but think that they are martyrs to equality.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 1:09 PM on July 28 [8 favorites]
Surprised nobody's really said this yet... the problem is rooted in people thinking there's a masculinity or feminity. I gave this a lot of thought early in my transition. Every trait that was assigned to one could be found in the other... maybe the expression was different but there was an expression.
Best I can figure there's only nurturing life. Everyone does that, even Trump. He just nurtures his own life at the expense of everyone else. How wide is this circle? How skillful is the effort?
That's my 2 cents on the matter.
posted by kokaku at 1:25 PM on July 28 [16 favorites]
Best I can figure there's only nurturing life. Everyone does that, even Trump. He just nurtures his own life at the expense of everyone else. How wide is this circle? How skillful is the effort?
That's my 2 cents on the matter.
posted by kokaku at 1:25 PM on July 28 [16 favorites]
I remember when being bummed that you couldn't get laid meant you to learned to play guitar and started a bad punk band.
posted by East14thTaco at 1:26 PM on July 28 [18 favorites]
posted by East14thTaco at 1:26 PM on July 28 [18 favorites]
as a site we just had a long, detailed, nuanced discussion of exactly that problem
In that thread I posted a thoughtful comment based on the experiences of my autistic son in school. I hope it provides a lens on the early part of how our institutions betray our young people, because the version of feminism that they use is not a truly radical one and betrays the trust of young people, especially the most vulnerable.
posted by splitpeasoup at 1:26 PM on July 28 [3 favorites]
In that thread I posted a thoughtful comment based on the experiences of my autistic son in school. I hope it provides a lens on the early part of how our institutions betray our young people, because the version of feminism that they use is not a truly radical one and betrays the trust of young people, especially the most vulnerable.
posted by splitpeasoup at 1:26 PM on July 28 [3 favorites]
It’s like Germaine Greer said:
I don’t think we’re anywhere near coming to terms with that on the left, but the right is determined to reduce women and girls to a condition of abject slavery, both sexually and otherwise.
posted by jamjam at 1:26 PM on July 28 [15 favorites]
Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.She could have gone on to say that 'men have very little idea of how much they themselves, collectively and as individuals, hate women.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near coming to terms with that on the left, but the right is determined to reduce women and girls to a condition of abject slavery, both sexually and otherwise.
posted by jamjam at 1:26 PM on July 28 [15 favorites]
It's something I try to puzzle out as I try to think of why I am transmasculine - what do I mean that I "feel like a man"? I am confident that whatever that means, it does not mean "I feel like I have a different kind of morality than women do".
It's pleasantly interesting to see my own thoughts expressed by someone else. I'm a pretty "manly" man. I'm a power lifter*, I think fast cars and monster trucks are cool, hard rock and heavy metal, etc. So maybe it's a man thing?** But I also do almost all of the cooking for my family, like taking care of babies and kids, I'm not afraid to express my emotions and some of the other things are "supposed" to be bad at.
I given this a lot of thought for a very long time about how I know I'm a man (and a straight man at that). The best that I can come up with is, "I don't know, I just do." And I don't think it really matters that much, just be you.
*The sport has surprisingly feminist and body positive views.
**Or just a human thing, of course.
posted by VTX at 1:30 PM on July 28 [9 favorites]
It's pleasantly interesting to see my own thoughts expressed by someone else. I'm a pretty "manly" man. I'm a power lifter*, I think fast cars and monster trucks are cool, hard rock and heavy metal, etc. So maybe it's a man thing?** But I also do almost all of the cooking for my family, like taking care of babies and kids, I'm not afraid to express my emotions and some of the other things are "supposed" to be bad at.
I given this a lot of thought for a very long time about how I know I'm a man (and a straight man at that). The best that I can come up with is, "I don't know, I just do." And I don't think it really matters that much, just be you.
*The sport has surprisingly feminist and body positive views.
**Or just a human thing, of course.
posted by VTX at 1:30 PM on July 28 [9 favorites]
Growing up in American culture, I've had to gradually learn to wean myself out of conflating cruelty with masculinity.
Personally, I don't believe that dominance games and power dynamics are fundamental to being masculine per se, but rather are a through-line in American culture to arbitrarily project hierarchical status.
Being "cool" requires a certain amount of dispassionate ruthlessness. I've said as much before, so many of our words of praise celebrate cruelty- "badass", "fierce", "pimp" , "OG", "killer", etc etc.
And I don't think in-group/out-group dynamics are an automatic thing, but are nurtured and fostered in our culture.
This really opens up what I consider "masculine". I don't really know, culturally speaking. When I hear people trying to define it, it comes off to me as variants of hacky takes like "women be shopping". Women can be competitive athletes. Men can be sensitive artists. As I get older, I feel like its less and less important to categorize people as "less than" because they don't adhere to a particular cultural stereotype.
posted by ishmael at 1:31 PM on July 28 [5 favorites]
Personally, I don't believe that dominance games and power dynamics are fundamental to being masculine per se, but rather are a through-line in American culture to arbitrarily project hierarchical status.
Being "cool" requires a certain amount of dispassionate ruthlessness. I've said as much before, so many of our words of praise celebrate cruelty- "badass", "fierce", "pimp" , "OG", "killer", etc etc.
And I don't think in-group/out-group dynamics are an automatic thing, but are nurtured and fostered in our culture.
This really opens up what I consider "masculine". I don't really know, culturally speaking. When I hear people trying to define it, it comes off to me as variants of hacky takes like "women be shopping". Women can be competitive athletes. Men can be sensitive artists. As I get older, I feel like its less and less important to categorize people as "less than" because they don't adhere to a particular cultural stereotype.
posted by ishmael at 1:31 PM on July 28 [5 favorites]
What is it about society and socialisation that (many) men are channelled into regressive masculinity that makes the conservatives foreground that segment as key to the base? Why is it automatically and by default assumed that men want to be the worst versions of humanity? Power, right? So the GOP appeals to a base that believes it has a divine right to power, especially over women and women’s freedoms and choices. If that means toxic masculinity gets shamed, it is only right, because toxic masculinity deserves nothing else. It’s the root of societies many ills: rape, other GBV, coercion, shit workplaces, revanchist politics. Of course parties are divided by their views on gender and not gender itself. I mean, what is the inverse of that actually even saying? The views of gender is the very basis on what regressive and progressive each believe gender should be. So I don’t really get the point of the author’s distinction. Like we say patriarchy hurts men too, and toxic masculinity is one of the manifestations of that harm. But instead of seeing that for what it is, it is celebrated amongst gender essentialists as a right that men have. Which is nonsense. Almost all of gender norms are learnt, and if society can find a way past that to allow people just to be, boys,girls, theys and all, we might get out of false binaries that do more harm than just weak articles written to presidential campaign clickbait.
posted by 23yearlurker at 1:51 PM on July 28 [4 favorites]
posted by 23yearlurker at 1:51 PM on July 28 [4 favorites]
>In 1995, women were just 1 percentage point more likely to say they were pro-choice than men. Today women are 14 points more likely to say they’re pro-choice—the highest margin on record.
I'd caution this is just one poll - according to Pew, the 2024 gap is 3 percent.
posted by wattle at 2:11 PM on July 28 [9 favorites]
I'd caution this is just one poll - according to Pew, the 2024 gap is 3 percent.
posted by wattle at 2:11 PM on July 28 [9 favorites]
Grunkle Stan gives Dipper the best explanation of non-toxic masculinity I've seen so far, at the tail end of an entire episode that deftly skewers the other, toxic kind.
posted by signal at 2:36 PM on July 28 [7 favorites]
posted by signal at 2:36 PM on July 28 [7 favorites]
When I think about masculinity, I think about my Dad, who is super manly in a lot of ways: he was a civil engineer who built power plants for a living, and his hobbies include repairing machinery and boating and watching the kinds of youtube videos where dudes blow things up. The house flooded, and he responded by making a six-foot-deep French drain because why not. People bring him stuff to fix and he can turn the missing part on his lathe. Need a tool? I don't care what it is, he's got it.
None of that is exclusive to men, of course, but given the general discourse on manliness in western society, he's pretty much nailing it.
But he's also one of the most gentle people I know, and he can endlessly listen to me tell him my troubles, and he does his best to do half the housework. He is genuinely distressed by cruelty to the point that he really hates movies which feature uncomfortable humour. He turned our laundry into a pottery room for my Mum, with a kiln and filters on the pipes to catch the clay, as a surprise while she was away one time. He's kind and his favourite thing is to be silly and make people laugh.
Like I kind of hate gender stuff to begin with, but if we must have masculinity and femininity (and it appears we must?) then can we just have masculinity as the activities and interests and competencies that we have traditionally coded as masculine, without all the toxic cruelty?
posted by joannemerriam at 2:55 PM on July 28 [20 favorites]
None of that is exclusive to men, of course, but given the general discourse on manliness in western society, he's pretty much nailing it.
But he's also one of the most gentle people I know, and he can endlessly listen to me tell him my troubles, and he does his best to do half the housework. He is genuinely distressed by cruelty to the point that he really hates movies which feature uncomfortable humour. He turned our laundry into a pottery room for my Mum, with a kiln and filters on the pipes to catch the clay, as a surprise while she was away one time. He's kind and his favourite thing is to be silly and make people laugh.
Like I kind of hate gender stuff to begin with, but if we must have masculinity and femininity (and it appears we must?) then can we just have masculinity as the activities and interests and competencies that we have traditionally coded as masculine, without all the toxic cruelty?
posted by joannemerriam at 2:55 PM on July 28 [20 favorites]
As a few people here have pointed out, toxic masculinity just seems to be about cruelty. Anything I could think to describe as toxic femininity is about cruelty too. I'd throw selfishness in as well.
Don't be cruel. Don't be selfish. Live and let live.
posted by ersatzsapience at 3:01 PM on July 28 [18 favorites]
Don't be cruel. Don't be selfish. Live and let live.
posted by ersatzsapience at 3:01 PM on July 28 [18 favorites]
I am the nightmare that they fear: I took a long look in the mirror seven years ago at the masculinity left in myself and took a pill to wash it away. When that wasn't enough, I told the doctors to cut it out with a knife. With several knives.
I love what remains.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 4:24 PM on July 28 [16 favorites]
I love what remains.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 4:24 PM on July 28 [16 favorites]
I really get why people feel both profoundly disappointed by OR encouraged by the masculinity thread, and I also encourage everyone reading this thread to have a look at that one. It reminds me strongly of the emotional labor Big Thread but like, not in the sense that you get to emerge with hard won insights. But it gave me a much clearer understanding of the problem and has made me a better listener to my male friends who e.g. bemoan the lack of spaces for dads or proliferation of spaces for moms only. In the past I would have at least thought to myself if not said "well, then maybe men should take responsibility for organizing some spaces themselves." Now....well, at least I'll focus on listening and building empathy, while understand why not every woman can do the same.
I'm one of three moderators of the Discord for [MY CITY] Men's Social Club, which I joined a year ago post-divorce as one avenue for re-expanding my social circles. The guy who founded it did so because he was inspired by the groups of retired men you see at places like McDonalds on a Tuesday morning, grabbing cheap coffee and shooting the shit, and thought it might be nice to try to get something like that started for younger dudes, in order to combat male loneliness and help men make friends.
The main way folks find their way to the group is through our posts on the city's subreddit advertising our regular bi-weekly meetups (and then there are lots of other events -- hikes, trivia nights, etc -- organized on the Discord). Whenever we make those posts, there's inevitably pushback in the comments. Some of it is kneejerk criticism assuming that any group called a Men's Club must be a hive of he-man misogyny, and some of it is broader criticism that at this point we should be past gender-based socialization and that there's no reason for a men's club to exist in this day and age.
The other two mods and I have spent a good amount of time trying to hash out the purpose for the club and who it's for. The best we could come up with is that the men's social club is aimed at men and anyone else impacted by or with experience with masculinity, and that the club is open to anyone who wants to be a part of it and/or thinks they would benefit from it. We get a kick out of the criticism since not all of the club membership is cishet men like the kneejerk posters assume -- in particular, one of the other mods recently started testosterone blockers and is thinking about changing how they identify, so there's a decent chance 1/3 of the men's club leadership will be a woman in the near future -- but it is a bit frustrating that attempting to create a positive male space is met with skepticism and criticism (though it's also understandable given how men-only spaces have often functioned as exclusionary bastions historically).
posted by bassooner at 4:31 PM on July 28 [30 favorites]
I'm one of three moderators of the Discord for [MY CITY] Men's Social Club, which I joined a year ago post-divorce as one avenue for re-expanding my social circles. The guy who founded it did so because he was inspired by the groups of retired men you see at places like McDonalds on a Tuesday morning, grabbing cheap coffee and shooting the shit, and thought it might be nice to try to get something like that started for younger dudes, in order to combat male loneliness and help men make friends.
The main way folks find their way to the group is through our posts on the city's subreddit advertising our regular bi-weekly meetups (and then there are lots of other events -- hikes, trivia nights, etc -- organized on the Discord). Whenever we make those posts, there's inevitably pushback in the comments. Some of it is kneejerk criticism assuming that any group called a Men's Club must be a hive of he-man misogyny, and some of it is broader criticism that at this point we should be past gender-based socialization and that there's no reason for a men's club to exist in this day and age.
The other two mods and I have spent a good amount of time trying to hash out the purpose for the club and who it's for. The best we could come up with is that the men's social club is aimed at men and anyone else impacted by or with experience with masculinity, and that the club is open to anyone who wants to be a part of it and/or thinks they would benefit from it. We get a kick out of the criticism since not all of the club membership is cishet men like the kneejerk posters assume -- in particular, one of the other mods recently started testosterone blockers and is thinking about changing how they identify, so there's a decent chance 1/3 of the men's club leadership will be a woman in the near future -- but it is a bit frustrating that attempting to create a positive male space is met with skepticism and criticism (though it's also understandable given how men-only spaces have often functioned as exclusionary bastions historically).
posted by bassooner at 4:31 PM on July 28 [30 favorites]
I (cis-white male) never was involved in 'masculine' groups, excepting a few months in the Boy Scouts, where I didn't feel comfortable- no sports teams, military, or fraternities.
I count myself lucky.
I've never been that interested in men (probably because they don't have boobs??) or in fitting in with men.
I had internalized the idea that I have to at least appear to be somewhat masculine to my male peers, but that was just self-protection from the bullies.
I feel fortunate that my life was instructed by generations of strong females.
I'm actually in a men's group, which is kind of a stretch for me who has some autism behaviors, but I think it's good for me. These are good men.
And grateful to my wife, who for 50+ years has guided me.
posted by MtDewd at 5:06 PM on July 28 [11 favorites]
I count myself lucky.
I've never been that interested in men (probably because they don't have boobs??) or in fitting in with men.
I had internalized the idea that I have to at least appear to be somewhat masculine to my male peers, but that was just self-protection from the bullies.
I feel fortunate that my life was instructed by generations of strong females.
I'm actually in a men's group, which is kind of a stretch for me who has some autism behaviors, but I think it's good for me. These are good men.
And grateful to my wife, who for 50+ years has guided me.
posted by MtDewd at 5:06 PM on July 28 [11 favorites]
Holy Hell, bassooner, way to be the change you want to see in the world. So cool!
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:10 PM on July 28 [3 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:10 PM on July 28 [3 favorites]
left has become more adept at shaming toxic masculinity than at showcasing a positive masculinity that is distinct from femininity.
Aaaargh. I have complex feelings about how progressives approach the question of masculinity, but in the context of this particular article it’s just the author trying to inject weak both-sides-ism and warrants only disdain IMO.
I was just talking about this with a fellow leftist who got back from Cuba recently, and the answer honestly seems to be that the American left is really just really, really, uniquely bad at this in ways that the left in other places just *isn’t*. (See: Zapatistas after the implementation of the Ley Revolutionaria de Mujeres) And I think that talking about this in that way is probably the most helpful way - to frame it as a failing of the *American* left rather than of The Left Overall. Because this does, sincerely, does seem to be a uniquely American problem.
My *suspicion* is that this is first, because the American left is so fucking fragmented that it doesn’t have a unified enough culture to present *anything* as a role model, and second, because it hasn’t actually won, it’s just kind of talking as though it has won, and acting like that is the same when it *just fucking isn’t*. Like: we are kind of still in the middle of the gender war. It’s not just about offering other paths forward - though we should - it’s also about winning actual territory where women can be treated decently. Which doesn’t currently exist.
posted by corb at 8:23 PM on July 28 [13 favorites]
Aaaargh. I have complex feelings about how progressives approach the question of masculinity, but in the context of this particular article it’s just the author trying to inject weak both-sides-ism and warrants only disdain IMO.
I was just talking about this with a fellow leftist who got back from Cuba recently, and the answer honestly seems to be that the American left is really just really, really, uniquely bad at this in ways that the left in other places just *isn’t*. (See: Zapatistas after the implementation of the Ley Revolutionaria de Mujeres) And I think that talking about this in that way is probably the most helpful way - to frame it as a failing of the *American* left rather than of The Left Overall. Because this does, sincerely, does seem to be a uniquely American problem.
My *suspicion* is that this is first, because the American left is so fucking fragmented that it doesn’t have a unified enough culture to present *anything* as a role model, and second, because it hasn’t actually won, it’s just kind of talking as though it has won, and acting like that is the same when it *just fucking isn’t*. Like: we are kind of still in the middle of the gender war. It’s not just about offering other paths forward - though we should - it’s also about winning actual territory where women can be treated decently. Which doesn’t currently exist.
posted by corb at 8:23 PM on July 28 [13 favorites]
I was under the impression that masculine and feminine are culturally constructed ideas of qualities that all people have to some extent?
That they're assigned along "male" and "female" axis(instead of, say, assigning being nurturing or being aggressive certain temperatures or colours) because of a mix of biological and cultural reasons?
They're also really fuzzy terms and fall apart and become contradictory when you try to analyse exactly what they map onto beyond a certain point (for example, "nurturing" can be described in both feminine and masculine ways)
Seems like some people believe that being a certain gender defines whether you have masculine or feminine qualities, and that if you don't have the m/f qualities that supposedly match your gender, you not really that gender ("not a real man / not a real woman")
. But that if you're "doing gender wrong" in this way, it is your duty to fix that by embodying the correct traits, according to the traditional gender binary, and turn yourself into a real man or woman?
But your capacity to change yourself into a man or a woman is limited by biological sex, (according to this way of thinking) so only male not-men can become men (by being more masculine) , and female not-women can become women (by being more feminine).
Which is tough because you never get to define what being masculine or feminine actually is, according to you, you're stuck with other people's nebulous definitions and those goalposts keep shifting.
If all people embody both masculine and feminine traits to greater or lesser degrees and combinations (which is my belief) can a woman also have the traits of toxic masculinity? Or are those traits defined by a person being a man? Or is "toxic masculinity" a term that's not that useful outside of a very specific context, like discussing rape culture, for example?
posted by Zumbador at 9:59 PM on July 28 [2 favorites]
That they're assigned along "male" and "female" axis(instead of, say, assigning being nurturing or being aggressive certain temperatures or colours) because of a mix of biological and cultural reasons?
They're also really fuzzy terms and fall apart and become contradictory when you try to analyse exactly what they map onto beyond a certain point (for example, "nurturing" can be described in both feminine and masculine ways)
Seems like some people believe that being a certain gender defines whether you have masculine or feminine qualities, and that if you don't have the m/f qualities that supposedly match your gender, you not really that gender ("not a real man / not a real woman")
. But that if you're "doing gender wrong" in this way, it is your duty to fix that by embodying the correct traits, according to the traditional gender binary, and turn yourself into a real man or woman?
But your capacity to change yourself into a man or a woman is limited by biological sex, (according to this way of thinking) so only male not-men can become men (by being more masculine) , and female not-women can become women (by being more feminine).
Which is tough because you never get to define what being masculine or feminine actually is, according to you, you're stuck with other people's nebulous definitions and those goalposts keep shifting.
If all people embody both masculine and feminine traits to greater or lesser degrees and combinations (which is my belief) can a woman also have the traits of toxic masculinity? Or are those traits defined by a person being a man? Or is "toxic masculinity" a term that's not that useful outside of a very specific context, like discussing rape culture, for example?
posted by Zumbador at 9:59 PM on July 28 [2 favorites]
Having just watched the reading rainbow documentary last night, I will suggest that Levar Burton is a pinnacle of non toxic masculinity.
The foundations of what I believe about leadership were taught to me by some army brass through Duke's ROTC program (long story). On day one they awaited us in fatigues with the Top Gun Anthem playing. Their instruction was distinctly different from what I suspect is taught in MBA programs, emphasizing moral values, service, radical responsibility, and leading from the front. Still, I remember the class being asked early on to name leadership role models, and students piping up one by one:
"Eisenhower! He delivered us from an axis of evil!"
"It took Regan to stare down the commies!"
My turn came, and I eagerly piped up
"Jean-Luc Picard! He solved every problem with words, reason, and understanding! He was a student of history, and found common ground between enemies with space meetings and space conference calls!"
I was wrestling quite a bit with some expectations around masculinity at the time, and I don't think I really connected the dots as to just how big of an influence having certain role models had on me. They helped me grow into my own identity, by providing an unambiguous case study that way I wanted to interact with the world could work. I grew up with Levar Burton reading to me. That may have embedded deeper than I thought. I think I may have been extremely lucky to benefit from the visibility of several such role models, going back to Mr. Rodgers, as a fellow MeFite recently reminded me. I think if they hadn't struggled to present themselves as an option, I could have gone down a very different path.
I was unaware of this documentary and I'm firing it up right now, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
posted by 1024 at 10:57 PM on July 28 [14 favorites]
The foundations of what I believe about leadership were taught to me by some army brass through Duke's ROTC program (long story). On day one they awaited us in fatigues with the Top Gun Anthem playing. Their instruction was distinctly different from what I suspect is taught in MBA programs, emphasizing moral values, service, radical responsibility, and leading from the front. Still, I remember the class being asked early on to name leadership role models, and students piping up one by one:
"Eisenhower! He delivered us from an axis of evil!"
"It took Regan to stare down the commies!"
My turn came, and I eagerly piped up
"Jean-Luc Picard! He solved every problem with words, reason, and understanding! He was a student of history, and found common ground between enemies with space meetings and space conference calls!"
I was wrestling quite a bit with some expectations around masculinity at the time, and I don't think I really connected the dots as to just how big of an influence having certain role models had on me. They helped me grow into my own identity, by providing an unambiguous case study that way I wanted to interact with the world could work. I grew up with Levar Burton reading to me. That may have embedded deeper than I thought. I think I may have been extremely lucky to benefit from the visibility of several such role models, going back to Mr. Rodgers, as a fellow MeFite recently reminded me. I think if they hadn't struggled to present themselves as an option, I could have gone down a very different path.
I was unaware of this documentary and I'm firing it up right now, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
posted by 1024 at 10:57 PM on July 28 [14 favorites]
We can look at specific examples, but I don't know if it helps.
I was on a canoe trip with three other men, when we decided to walk up a stream that fed into our river. About 500 meters up the stream a black bear appeared in the stream behind us, between us and our canoes. In an instant, without a word or glance exchanged, all four of us formed a line and we marched swiftly towards the bear. It bolted into the forest and we regained our canoes and pushed off. It was all over in a minute and we laughed about it for the rest of the trip.
A few years later, I was hiking in the woods with 4 other men. A person came down the trail and warned us that someone else had seen a bear near the trail. One of the men I was with promptly had a health episode (like a full body panic attack), two of them ran away into the tick-infested woods in separate directions, and the last one was consumed by fear and was quickly covered in sweat from head to toe. It took about 30 minutes to gather everyone, calm them down, remove ticks and make a convoluted plan for getting out of there. That story became a cautionary tale about how dangerous the woods are in that friend group.
Only one of those events would be characterized as masculine in the light of North American culture, and likely many cultures. Except that I know many women who would have directly confronted the bear as we did. The women would not have been aggressively jocular like we were, but they would have acted on the same imperative of quickly convincing the bear that they were not easy prey. I know a very few Indigenous people. But the little I do know leads me to think that a group of Indigenous men would not have behaved as we did. They would likely be far more interested in studying the bear, seeing how it reacts to four humans in its territory and mapping in their minds where this bear might live, eat, mate and den. Is that as masculine behaviour as charging a bear? Why don't Indigenous people know about the imperative of quickly convincing the bear that they weren't easy prey[/s]?
To my mind, when the only people talking up masculinity are plainly 'might makes right' people, you might think that masculinity is a cover for something else.
posted by SnowRottie at 11:25 PM on July 28 [8 favorites]
I was on a canoe trip with three other men, when we decided to walk up a stream that fed into our river. About 500 meters up the stream a black bear appeared in the stream behind us, between us and our canoes. In an instant, without a word or glance exchanged, all four of us formed a line and we marched swiftly towards the bear. It bolted into the forest and we regained our canoes and pushed off. It was all over in a minute and we laughed about it for the rest of the trip.
A few years later, I was hiking in the woods with 4 other men. A person came down the trail and warned us that someone else had seen a bear near the trail. One of the men I was with promptly had a health episode (like a full body panic attack), two of them ran away into the tick-infested woods in separate directions, and the last one was consumed by fear and was quickly covered in sweat from head to toe. It took about 30 minutes to gather everyone, calm them down, remove ticks and make a convoluted plan for getting out of there. That story became a cautionary tale about how dangerous the woods are in that friend group.
Only one of those events would be characterized as masculine in the light of North American culture, and likely many cultures. Except that I know many women who would have directly confronted the bear as we did. The women would not have been aggressively jocular like we were, but they would have acted on the same imperative of quickly convincing the bear that they were not easy prey. I know a very few Indigenous people. But the little I do know leads me to think that a group of Indigenous men would not have behaved as we did. They would likely be far more interested in studying the bear, seeing how it reacts to four humans in its territory and mapping in their minds where this bear might live, eat, mate and den. Is that as masculine behaviour as charging a bear? Why don't Indigenous people know about the imperative of quickly convincing the bear that they weren't easy prey[/s]?
To my mind, when the only people talking up masculinity are plainly 'might makes right' people, you might think that masculinity is a cover for something else.
posted by SnowRottie at 11:25 PM on July 28 [8 favorites]
Another huge refinement in my thinking came from a management studies course I took in London. My professor was explaining how the behaviors and traits most commonly associated with leadership were agentic, not masculine. However, when a woman exhibited an agentic leadership trait which was coded as masculine, she would be punished. Or worse, discover the "glass cliff," where leadership opportunities would open up to her – for doomed companies, where the board had made a risk calculation on a "Lady CEO" to act as a crumple zone before a man retook the reigns. My best friends were female, I was running a company with a woman, and this alarmed me.
Furthermore, I learned that while many of the traits associated with leadership were coded as masculine, a fully "masculine" expression of leadership had been known to fail since the end of the industrial era. The tools of the foreman to maximize widget production had proven woefully ineffective with knowledge workers. Time and time again, morale stubbornly failed to improve despite repeated beatings. This had been studied and documented. In fact, traits that were typically coded as "feminine" had proven to be far more effective in the information economy. However, male leaders faced punishment for exhibiting traits which were coded as feminine.
I ended that course thinking "all this masc/femme labeling is a bunch of unhelpful bullshit. It gets in the way of what's important and improves absolutely nothing." I have some more specific personal theories about why "feminine" leadership traits may be more effective, specifically due to the effectiveness of a team scaling with its ability to collaborate and coordinate and the impact of investments in such network capacities scaling according to Metcalfe's law.
In my personal journey, I have never found the lens of gender particularly useful. Like many labels, it seems to serve others far more than those to whom it applies. It has just... been constraining. I don't like having to fit in a box. These days, I really just try to be a good person, but when I'm practicing a trait which doesn't fit my gender expression, I'll try to own it in public for what it is, just in case someone who's struggling like I once did is watching.
posted by 1024 at 11:35 PM on July 28 [11 favorites]
Furthermore, I learned that while many of the traits associated with leadership were coded as masculine, a fully "masculine" expression of leadership had been known to fail since the end of the industrial era. The tools of the foreman to maximize widget production had proven woefully ineffective with knowledge workers. Time and time again, morale stubbornly failed to improve despite repeated beatings. This had been studied and documented. In fact, traits that were typically coded as "feminine" had proven to be far more effective in the information economy. However, male leaders faced punishment for exhibiting traits which were coded as feminine.
I ended that course thinking "all this masc/femme labeling is a bunch of unhelpful bullshit. It gets in the way of what's important and improves absolutely nothing." I have some more specific personal theories about why "feminine" leadership traits may be more effective, specifically due to the effectiveness of a team scaling with its ability to collaborate and coordinate and the impact of investments in such network capacities scaling according to Metcalfe's law.
In my personal journey, I have never found the lens of gender particularly useful. Like many labels, it seems to serve others far more than those to whom it applies. It has just... been constraining. I don't like having to fit in a box. These days, I really just try to be a good person, but when I'm practicing a trait which doesn't fit my gender expression, I'll try to own it in public for what it is, just in case someone who's struggling like I once did is watching.
posted by 1024 at 11:35 PM on July 28 [11 favorites]
Ahhhh I don't want to minimize anyone's struggles with gender, I'm really afraid I might have come off as dismissive and that is not at all my intent. It has been a tremendously useful lens for me to see the world as it is, and consider the way different socialization patterns and societal expectations can encourage or bind people differently. I benefit from enormous privilege from male being the default gender in all aspects of society, not just medical studies. Sorry, I should absolutely not have been quite so glib about that – I am quite lucky to be able to approach gender in the way I do at all, and I don't want to detract from other people who relate to gender differently.
posted by 1024 at 11:45 PM on July 28 [4 favorites]
posted by 1024 at 11:45 PM on July 28 [4 favorites]
Just speaking for myself, 1024, I did not experience your comment as belittling at all. Just an interesting glimpse into your experience.
posted by Zumbador at 11:48 PM on July 28 [3 favorites]
posted by Zumbador at 11:48 PM on July 28 [3 favorites]
Also, I'd like to link to this awesome comment about gender valence by metaphorever.
To quote some of it:
While the concept that a person's gender identity can be anything along a diverse spectrum and not just be strictly one of two binary options is now becoming fairly widely understood (even if people disagree) the idea that the strength or intensity that a person feels an "internal sense of having a gender identity" can also be on a spectrum is less widely acknowledged.
Read the rest at the link.
posted by Zumbador at 11:54 PM on July 28 [8 favorites]
To quote some of it:
While the concept that a person's gender identity can be anything along a diverse spectrum and not just be strictly one of two binary options is now becoming fairly widely understood (even if people disagree) the idea that the strength or intensity that a person feels an "internal sense of having a gender identity" can also be on a spectrum is less widely acknowledged.
Read the rest at the link.
posted by Zumbador at 11:54 PM on July 28 [8 favorites]
Thank you, Zumbador, for giving me a term for the fuzzy concept I had in mind with my last post. I specifically had trans friends in mind when I wrote that - I knew that gender identity was a much stronger drive for some of them than what I felt, and I didn't want to invalidate anyone else's relationship to gender with my own.. I guess apathy. In addition to giving me a name for a concept I had vaguely understood, that post was hugely validating for my own personal stance. I appreciate you bringing it up here.
posted by 1024 at 1:20 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
posted by 1024 at 1:20 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
whenever the subject of positive masculinity comes up, i think of the "dudes rock" meme
not even kidding, every time i see a post on socials with the accompanying caption "dudes rock", if it is used unironically, it is invariably a video, news story, or anecdote of a guy or group of guys being excellent to others. being gregarious, adventurous, caring, funny, imaginative--all great traits for any human being to have, regardless of gender
i have ruminated a lot on gender, and i don't think it's super helpful to get bogged down in objective definitions of what it means to be any gender, or no gender at all; i think it's more helpful to just let others decide what gender they are, and what being gender that means for them
but i think "dudes rock" does a lot in terms of showcasing examples of positive masculinity, and given its memetic qualities might serve as good examples for young men trying to figure out what being a man means to them. i sure hope it can anyway
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:46 AM on July 29 [9 favorites]
not even kidding, every time i see a post on socials with the accompanying caption "dudes rock", if it is used unironically, it is invariably a video, news story, or anecdote of a guy or group of guys being excellent to others. being gregarious, adventurous, caring, funny, imaginative--all great traits for any human being to have, regardless of gender
i have ruminated a lot on gender, and i don't think it's super helpful to get bogged down in objective definitions of what it means to be any gender, or no gender at all; i think it's more helpful to just let others decide what gender they are, and what being gender that means for them
but i think "dudes rock" does a lot in terms of showcasing examples of positive masculinity, and given its memetic qualities might serve as good examples for young men trying to figure out what being a man means to them. i sure hope it can anyway
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:46 AM on July 29 [9 favorites]
I've enjoyed this thread and thinking about it for the past day or so. I'm reminded of the time in college, late senior year, during the month of just absolutely relentless partying. Late one night, in a block of backyards filled with revelers, I saw a dude I know wandering around with a couple gallon jugs. Some concoction? "No," he told me - "Water. Have some. You don't want to get dehydrated when you're drinking this much." Dudes rock.
This is a wonderful sort of positive masculinity - the responsibility, the caretaking - that could also be labelled feminine, depending on the person doing it - but also depending on the value we assign to it. In this way, "gendering" is useful as a verb, as something that happens as the collective considers and values something. That is, gendering an activity includes the value we assign the activity based on the gender (and/or sex and/or assignment) of the person doing it.
The closer I look at the masculine and the feminine the more I get confused - either by the simplicity and obvious cultural subjectivity of the differences (eg, the clothes we wear, and our haircuts...), or by the lack of real difference between them (and yet...). The thing that carries the most water, to me, is in the value assigned by those around us; gender existing in the social makes sense - and yet it's something we feel internally. (A land of contrasts indeed...)
posted by entropone at 6:16 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
This is a wonderful sort of positive masculinity - the responsibility, the caretaking - that could also be labelled feminine, depending on the person doing it - but also depending on the value we assign to it. In this way, "gendering" is useful as a verb, as something that happens as the collective considers and values something. That is, gendering an activity includes the value we assign the activity based on the gender (and/or sex and/or assignment) of the person doing it.
The closer I look at the masculine and the feminine the more I get confused - either by the simplicity and obvious cultural subjectivity of the differences (eg, the clothes we wear, and our haircuts...), or by the lack of real difference between them (and yet...). The thing that carries the most water, to me, is in the value assigned by those around us; gender existing in the social makes sense - and yet it's something we feel internally. (A land of contrasts indeed...)
posted by entropone at 6:16 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
I thought this point from TFA was an important one and shouldn't be lost:
the parties aren’t remotely united by gender, Sides says. After all, millions of women will vote for Trump this year. But the parties are sharply divided by their cultural attitudes toward gender roles and the experience of being a man or woman in America.
posted by doctornemo at 7:50 AM on July 29 [2 favorites]
the parties aren’t remotely united by gender, Sides says. After all, millions of women will vote for Trump this year. But the parties are sharply divided by their cultural attitudes toward gender roles and the experience of being a man or woman in America.
posted by doctornemo at 7:50 AM on July 29 [2 favorites]
Chiming in to agree with zumbador and the others who are pushing back at the idea that defining masculinity requires that we do so in a way that is at all times and in all ways distinct from femininity. If we don’t deconstruct the underlying framework of oppositional sexism implicit in these assumptions then we are always going to end up in these loops of not knowing how to define masculinity (positive or not) because we hold the unspoken assumption that by saying “this quality is masculine” that that implicitly means that we are also saying that it is not feminine or accessible to feminine people (and others). So instead we get this idea that all qualities must be made gender neutral rather than unpacking the underlying assumptions that make us think that association with men makes that thing mutually exclusive to women.
If we want true gender liberation then we must start with critiquing the social circumstances that place people in these categories in the first place without their consent and how we treat those categories as immutable and mutually exclusive. Just saying that everyone should “be a good person” because you can’t define being a “good man” without feeling like you are saying that women are now forbidden from having those qualities doesn’t actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion, it reinforces the idea that woman and man are mutually exclusive categories with mutually exclusive traits. To me it’s much more radical to say that a man wearing makeup is expressing masculinity because he is expressing his gender as a man using makeup than it is to pat him on the back and say “it’s okay for you to be feminine” or “makeup is gender neutral” because we are afraid that by letting masculinity lay claim to something that we implicitly forbid it from being feminine.
I think the other problem we run into again and again is a failure to acknowledge the difference between observation and prescription. Is vs ought. Any conversation that doesn’t make clear distinction between observations about “this is how many men are” which is how we all understand the vague cloud of “things we associate with men and masculinity” from prescriptions about “what masculinity should or ought to be” is going to get hopeless mired in misunderstanding. Saying "men are stoic" can sounds very different whether you interpret it as "being stoic is a common trait that many men exhibit" vs "to be a man one must be stoic" but without further context or explanation many of the ways that we talk about gender can lead to these kinds of misunderstandings.
posted by metaphorever at 8:56 AM on July 29 [8 favorites]
If we want true gender liberation then we must start with critiquing the social circumstances that place people in these categories in the first place without their consent and how we treat those categories as immutable and mutually exclusive. Just saying that everyone should “be a good person” because you can’t define being a “good man” without feeling like you are saying that women are now forbidden from having those qualities doesn’t actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion, it reinforces the idea that woman and man are mutually exclusive categories with mutually exclusive traits. To me it’s much more radical to say that a man wearing makeup is expressing masculinity because he is expressing his gender as a man using makeup than it is to pat him on the back and say “it’s okay for you to be feminine” or “makeup is gender neutral” because we are afraid that by letting masculinity lay claim to something that we implicitly forbid it from being feminine.
I think the other problem we run into again and again is a failure to acknowledge the difference between observation and prescription. Is vs ought. Any conversation that doesn’t make clear distinction between observations about “this is how many men are” which is how we all understand the vague cloud of “things we associate with men and masculinity” from prescriptions about “what masculinity should or ought to be” is going to get hopeless mired in misunderstanding. Saying "men are stoic" can sounds very different whether you interpret it as "being stoic is a common trait that many men exhibit" vs "to be a man one must be stoic" but without further context or explanation many of the ways that we talk about gender can lead to these kinds of misunderstandings.
posted by metaphorever at 8:56 AM on July 29 [8 favorites]
One thing about getting old is that you start getting annoyed at people younger than you straining to reach obvious conclusions, when they're not straining to avoid them. I mean "Hmmmm... what exactly has changed in the world over the last 30 years that could cause a big jump in the fraction of women who identify as pro-choice?" I mean, after all, there was no change in the national dialog over that interval. It's not like there was a trend of one side in that debate getting increasingly shrill and demented and politically powerful. Was there?
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:09 AM on July 29 [3 favorites]
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:09 AM on July 29 [3 favorites]
Framing the current political moment as a 'gender war' and especially distracting people into having discussions about what masculinity is - it's just obfuscation (although that discussion is for sure worthwhile when it's not bait for 'proving' that leftists are anti-masculinity).
One side is reaching for emancipation, equity. The other wants to subjugate people and enshrine that subjugation into law. The fact that this tends to divide the populace along gender lines is not mysterious.
posted by kitcat at 10:35 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
One side is reaching for emancipation, equity. The other wants to subjugate people and enshrine that subjugation into law. The fact that this tends to divide the populace along gender lines is not mysterious.
posted by kitcat at 10:35 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
Not to be somewhat of a derail, but Thompson is not a very reliable and worthy source for this subject. He suffers from terminal pundit disease (know a little bit about stuff, pontificates knowing everything about everything about everything, supports this by ongoing humblebrags).
A few months ago he had on some guest 'expert' on this exact subject on his podcast and she stated, with a straight face, that the most important aspect of this entire issue was that colleges were way too focused on safe spaces for women and 'woke' issues (puke!) and that the colleges and women really needed to focus on reaching out to men to meet them where they lived (never even contemplated the reverse). And shockingly, never brought up Dobbs the entire podcast.
It was just such an idiotic approach to a crucial area. Waste of time to listen to him on this issue (or anything else) IMO.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:03 AM on July 29 [5 favorites]
A few months ago he had on some guest 'expert' on this exact subject on his podcast and she stated, with a straight face, that the most important aspect of this entire issue was that colleges were way too focused on safe spaces for women and 'woke' issues (puke!) and that the colleges and women really needed to focus on reaching out to men to meet them where they lived (never even contemplated the reverse). And shockingly, never brought up Dobbs the entire podcast.
It was just such an idiotic approach to a crucial area. Waste of time to listen to him on this issue (or anything else) IMO.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:03 AM on July 29 [5 favorites]
I was kinda shocked to watch "Butterfly in the Sky" and learn that Mr. Rodgers was an explicit goal. I am so thankful to all the people who worked to make the kind of public programming I was exposed to in my youth visible. Metafilter has helped me connect a line of dots between the male figures who had the most influence in my early life, starting with Mr. Rodgers, moving through Levar Burton on PBS on Reading Rainbow and Bill Nye on PBS and then later looping back to Jean-Luc Picard and many other man on ST:TNG with Data coming after Picard and then Geordi La Forge next in line.
I got to speak with Bill Nye when I was extremely young, maybe 3rd grade. I had been playing SimCity, and the highest-tech clean energy power plant had been a microwave power receiving dish. I asked Mr. Nye why we couldn’t spin massive flywheels in space, connect them to generators, and use a tight beam maser to receive unlimited clean energy from space anywhere in the world forever.
He thought a moment, and explained to me point by point how the energy in the flywheel would leak and dissipate through unavoidable inefficiencies in all physical mechanisms converting kinetic energy to electromagnetic energy - friction, heat, etc.. But the real whopper was the finale - when he told me that the spinning flywheel would not provide energy forever, even though it was in space, the energy in its spin was being depleted by the usage on the ground. The flywheel would not spin forever, its initial energy was being converted by the generator providing resistance 🤯🤯🤯
He did not use any jargon I could not understand, but he introduced me to concepts I had not yet been exposed to and would filter in to my education for years later. I had followed his every word at the time, rapt as he was responding to me in earnest, but I fundamentally did not understand that conservation is a fundamental property of the universe at that point - in my mind, the endless still existed.
It took two, maybe three years, maybe more before what I learned in school caught up to what I had been told in 3rd grade. Geeze, it may have been a lot more. Maybe middle school, even. I just remember a teacher explaining conservation of energy, and thinking “duh, like Bill Nye said, that’s why space power isn’t free.”
I had thought about what Bill Nye had told me countless times before then - parts of his answer had been literally incomprehensible, I could not understand some concepts, but so much of what he had told me had been so true that I had pored over every other thing he’d said time and time again over the years, trying to unlock a mystery just beyond my grasp. That moment when I grasped it, years later, was elation. All the years had been worth it. I kept searching for that feeling, again and again. I never stopped.
I feel profoundly lucky to have benefitted from just a few moment’s of that man’s attention planting seeds that later teachers would nourish.
Today, I split my time between a social venture and work with people to build robots and AI. There is a certain visual pizazz in our workspaces and demos that makes it very easy to communicate some hard concepts in way anyone can appreciate without having to learn formal mathematical expressions of the same phenomena. Physical products often demand a physical location, at least for a workshop or lab. Whenever I can, I have found it extremely easy to reach out to a few local high schools with a blurb about what’s in the office, what problems we’re working on, an letting them know we’re available as a field trip option for classes or individual students.
Sometimes there are a few bites, sometimes none, and sometimes I’ve had to task a colleague with coordinating multiple groups into fixed recurring timeslots due to overwhelming demand. The best engineers often love it; teaching is a necessary component of mastery, and a 45 minute investment during a workweek in members of my team getting to explain what they’re working on to a group of kids and answer their questions in depth has always paid massive dividends in morale, even if I didn’t feel duty-bound to pay it forward.
Schools are the best guests you could ever want, they show up early but don’t disturb you until the agreed upon start time, they don’t run over your allocated time, they clean up perfectly after themselves, and you can authentically engage and talk to anybody about exactly what you’re doing without worrying if they will use it to tank your company. And every once in a while you will see a mind absolutely light up, and realize maybe you’ve planted a seed yourself.
posted by 1024 at 11:08 AM on July 29 [9 favorites]
I got to speak with Bill Nye when I was extremely young, maybe 3rd grade. I had been playing SimCity, and the highest-tech clean energy power plant had been a microwave power receiving dish. I asked Mr. Nye why we couldn’t spin massive flywheels in space, connect them to generators, and use a tight beam maser to receive unlimited clean energy from space anywhere in the world forever.
He thought a moment, and explained to me point by point how the energy in the flywheel would leak and dissipate through unavoidable inefficiencies in all physical mechanisms converting kinetic energy to electromagnetic energy - friction, heat, etc.. But the real whopper was the finale - when he told me that the spinning flywheel would not provide energy forever, even though it was in space, the energy in its spin was being depleted by the usage on the ground. The flywheel would not spin forever, its initial energy was being converted by the generator providing resistance 🤯🤯🤯
He did not use any jargon I could not understand, but he introduced me to concepts I had not yet been exposed to and would filter in to my education for years later. I had followed his every word at the time, rapt as he was responding to me in earnest, but I fundamentally did not understand that conservation is a fundamental property of the universe at that point - in my mind, the endless still existed.
It took two, maybe three years, maybe more before what I learned in school caught up to what I had been told in 3rd grade. Geeze, it may have been a lot more. Maybe middle school, even. I just remember a teacher explaining conservation of energy, and thinking “duh, like Bill Nye said, that’s why space power isn’t free.”
I had thought about what Bill Nye had told me countless times before then - parts of his answer had been literally incomprehensible, I could not understand some concepts, but so much of what he had told me had been so true that I had pored over every other thing he’d said time and time again over the years, trying to unlock a mystery just beyond my grasp. That moment when I grasped it, years later, was elation. All the years had been worth it. I kept searching for that feeling, again and again. I never stopped.
I feel profoundly lucky to have benefitted from just a few moment’s of that man’s attention planting seeds that later teachers would nourish.
Today, I split my time between a social venture and work with people to build robots and AI. There is a certain visual pizazz in our workspaces and demos that makes it very easy to communicate some hard concepts in way anyone can appreciate without having to learn formal mathematical expressions of the same phenomena. Physical products often demand a physical location, at least for a workshop or lab. Whenever I can, I have found it extremely easy to reach out to a few local high schools with a blurb about what’s in the office, what problems we’re working on, an letting them know we’re available as a field trip option for classes or individual students.
Sometimes there are a few bites, sometimes none, and sometimes I’ve had to task a colleague with coordinating multiple groups into fixed recurring timeslots due to overwhelming demand. The best engineers often love it; teaching is a necessary component of mastery, and a 45 minute investment during a workweek in members of my team getting to explain what they’re working on to a group of kids and answer their questions in depth has always paid massive dividends in morale, even if I didn’t feel duty-bound to pay it forward.
Schools are the best guests you could ever want, they show up early but don’t disturb you until the agreed upon start time, they don’t run over your allocated time, they clean up perfectly after themselves, and you can authentically engage and talk to anybody about exactly what you’re doing without worrying if they will use it to tank your company. And every once in a while you will see a mind absolutely light up, and realize maybe you’ve planted a seed yourself.
posted by 1024 at 11:08 AM on July 29 [9 favorites]
"Jean-Luc Picard! He solved every problem with words, reason, and understanding! He was a student of history, and found common ground between enemies with space meetings and space conference calls!"
Hey 1024, if you see this, I'm real curious as to how the other men reacted to it.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:13 AM on July 29 [1 favorite]
Hey 1024, if you see this, I'm real curious as to how the other men reacted to it.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:13 AM on July 29 [1 favorite]
They looked at me like I had three heads
posted by 1024 at 11:16 AM on July 29 [5 favorites]
posted by 1024 at 11:16 AM on July 29 [5 favorites]
^^ I'm so sorry. It was a perfect answer, too.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:17 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:17 AM on July 29 [4 favorites]
Re: embracing men and masculinity from people on the left - we need more. But I do see it daily on my very left-slanted Tiktok. It's heartening. Every time a man says or does something positive where the expected, default action would have been some not-great, patriarchal or toxic thing there are hundreds and hundreds of cheerleading comments from women praising him for it, saying things like "You sir are a green flag!" and "Unproblematic king!". Of course, the people who need to see that maybe aren't seeing it.
posted by kitcat at 11:18 AM on July 29 [3 favorites]
posted by kitcat at 11:18 AM on July 29 [3 favorites]
Just saying that everyone should “be a good person” because you can’t define being a “good man” without feeling like you are saying that women are now forbidden from having those qualities doesn’t actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion, it reinforces the idea that woman and man are mutually exclusive categories with mutually exclusive traits. To me it’s much more radical to say that a man wearing makeup is expressing masculinity because he is expressing his gender as a man using makeup than it is to pat him on the back and say “it’s okay for you to be feminine” or “makeup is gender neutral” because we are afraid that by letting masculinity lay claim to something that we implicitly forbid it from being feminine.
Thank you, metaphorever, this really hits home for me. When I say "be a good person," I definitely feel like my apathy for gendered terms is lazily collapsing the range of other peoples' experiences and sidestepping the problem in a similar fashion to "I don't see race." I was a little caught up in self expression in my first post, and I tried to walk it back immediately afterwards, and Zumbador's link to your previous post on gender valence (thank you for that term, I have sent that post to three friends) really helped clarify my own stance. Your example also hits home for a sort of personal reason.
All my life, I have had more close female friends than male friends. This goes back to preschool, I have never known different. My mother was pretty invested in my physical appearance, and I had some body image issues and a bit of dysmorphia going into high school which was rapidly exacerbated by severe acne. My mother would not allow me to take medication to treat it for religious reasons, and routinely told me I was not scrubbing hard enough. Meanwhile, the complexion of all my closest friends was somehow asymptotically approaching porcelain perfection. I partially grokked the effect of hormonal birth control, but I had been completely unaware of an arms race in makeup and foundation had been waging in social spaces which were hidden to me. I wasn't allowed to take pills, but a female friend happily chaperoned me to Sephora when I made an inquiry about a light foundation and maybe a finishing powder.
I will never forget how withering the look of the people in that store was, back in 2004 or so. It was deeply uncomfortable to sit while an associate who seemed to resent me reluctantly followed my friend's guidance, asking her questions, only addressing me when I was doing something wrong. Fast forward two decades, and whenever I've done a PR event or appeared on a stage with someone notable, I go out of my way in front of groups to loudly talk about how my absolute favorite part of being next to Mr. Important Man was getting pampered in hair & makeup before the green room to make sure we're camera-ready. I love the craft and care of the MUAs doing their best to make me look good in public and help me feel confident – my go-to ice-breaker when I get in the chair is to ask for MLBB (perhaps the most common request they implicitly receive, "my lips but better"). I make a point of mentioning how makeup has been a fundamental, hidden part of the toolkit of those who wield power ever since the first televised 1960 presidential debate. Nixon won among listeners tuning in on the radio, but had been reluctant to enter the limelight with more than a perfunctory powdering. Big mistake; the limelight is hot, and sneaky sweaty tricky dick got trounced by JFK embracing stage makeup. Think back to Bush vs. Gore, and if the trajectory of the world could have been swayed by the right makeup artists in the right place at the right time. Just a few good MUAs.
Which is all to say, this issue is really important to me, but I really don't know how to engage in a way that minimizes harm. Gender as a concept has very little oomph to me beyond being something other people seem very, very fixated on in unhelpful ways to me personally but are sometimes incredibly poignant to them, I don't need to share the strength of that drive to absolutely acknowledge it as equally valid, and I absolutely don't want my own desire to exist apart for gender to crowd out people who want to own their gender. I feel like what I think I personally want may not be the battle that needs fighting right now – as you mentioned, focusing on "good person" without directly addressing the male/female issue does not actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion. And while I would be personally happy with the underlying system of gender coercion being undermined by everyone wearing matching track suits and hair cuts and using the same neutral names and pronouns, my desire to be rid of it all and live as a happy numbered drone in a larger collective so I can get back to what matters is incompatible with what matters to people I care about w.r.t. gender. And furthermore, their vision of the future doesn't preclude my enjoyment (or desire to not express) in the same way, so it seems like a more reasonable goal to work towards collectively.
I'm still very much working through my thoughts around this and appreciate this discussion greatly.
posted by 1024 at 11:55 AM on July 29 [5 favorites]
Thank you, metaphorever, this really hits home for me. When I say "be a good person," I definitely feel like my apathy for gendered terms is lazily collapsing the range of other peoples' experiences and sidestepping the problem in a similar fashion to "I don't see race." I was a little caught up in self expression in my first post, and I tried to walk it back immediately afterwards, and Zumbador's link to your previous post on gender valence (thank you for that term, I have sent that post to three friends) really helped clarify my own stance. Your example also hits home for a sort of personal reason.
All my life, I have had more close female friends than male friends. This goes back to preschool, I have never known different. My mother was pretty invested in my physical appearance, and I had some body image issues and a bit of dysmorphia going into high school which was rapidly exacerbated by severe acne. My mother would not allow me to take medication to treat it for religious reasons, and routinely told me I was not scrubbing hard enough. Meanwhile, the complexion of all my closest friends was somehow asymptotically approaching porcelain perfection. I partially grokked the effect of hormonal birth control, but I had been completely unaware of an arms race in makeup and foundation had been waging in social spaces which were hidden to me. I wasn't allowed to take pills, but a female friend happily chaperoned me to Sephora when I made an inquiry about a light foundation and maybe a finishing powder.
I will never forget how withering the look of the people in that store was, back in 2004 or so. It was deeply uncomfortable to sit while an associate who seemed to resent me reluctantly followed my friend's guidance, asking her questions, only addressing me when I was doing something wrong. Fast forward two decades, and whenever I've done a PR event or appeared on a stage with someone notable, I go out of my way in front of groups to loudly talk about how my absolute favorite part of being next to Mr. Important Man was getting pampered in hair & makeup before the green room to make sure we're camera-ready. I love the craft and care of the MUAs doing their best to make me look good in public and help me feel confident – my go-to ice-breaker when I get in the chair is to ask for MLBB (perhaps the most common request they implicitly receive, "my lips but better"). I make a point of mentioning how makeup has been a fundamental, hidden part of the toolkit of those who wield power ever since the first televised 1960 presidential debate. Nixon won among listeners tuning in on the radio, but had been reluctant to enter the limelight with more than a perfunctory powdering. Big mistake; the limelight is hot, and sneaky sweaty tricky dick got trounced by JFK embracing stage makeup. Think back to Bush vs. Gore, and if the trajectory of the world could have been swayed by the right makeup artists in the right place at the right time. Just a few good MUAs.
Which is all to say, this issue is really important to me, but I really don't know how to engage in a way that minimizes harm. Gender as a concept has very little oomph to me beyond being something other people seem very, very fixated on in unhelpful ways to me personally but are sometimes incredibly poignant to them, I don't need to share the strength of that drive to absolutely acknowledge it as equally valid, and I absolutely don't want my own desire to exist apart for gender to crowd out people who want to own their gender. I feel like what I think I personally want may not be the battle that needs fighting right now – as you mentioned, focusing on "good person" without directly addressing the male/female issue does not actually undermine the underlying system of gender coercion. And while I would be personally happy with the underlying system of gender coercion being undermined by everyone wearing matching track suits and hair cuts and using the same neutral names and pronouns, my desire to be rid of it all and live as a happy numbered drone in a larger collective so I can get back to what matters is incompatible with what matters to people I care about w.r.t. gender. And furthermore, their vision of the future doesn't preclude my enjoyment (or desire to not express) in the same way, so it seems like a more reasonable goal to work towards collectively.
I'm still very much working through my thoughts around this and appreciate this discussion greatly.
posted by 1024 at 11:55 AM on July 29 [5 favorites]
Of course, the people who need to see that maybe aren't seeing it.
posted by kitcat at 11:18 AM on July 29 [+] [⚑]
I have been performative in my role as person who presents as male working in deep tech in the bay area for this reason. Your post kinda hit me right in the responsibility. I just looked up Levar Burton's age, and he was 10 years younger than I am today when he started on Reading Rainbow. I have been off all social media for many, many years now, but I'm wondering if the people I most need to reach and who would be most primed to listen to someone with my background are mostly online, not just in my office, where I perform in private. I have enough seniority to reasonably insulate me from blowback for taking some public stances. I've been doing what I can in person, but ugh, maybe I really should be speaking more loudly on a platform like TikTok. People in my generation are now in the position of boomers in my youth – managing the projects which shape the landscape of youth culture. Perhaps the time has come to speak up, and leave more fish for Kunta.
posted by 1024 at 12:12 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
posted by kitcat at 11:18 AM on July 29 [+] [⚑]
I have been performative in my role as person who presents as male working in deep tech in the bay area for this reason. Your post kinda hit me right in the responsibility. I just looked up Levar Burton's age, and he was 10 years younger than I am today when he started on Reading Rainbow. I have been off all social media for many, many years now, but I'm wondering if the people I most need to reach and who would be most primed to listen to someone with my background are mostly online, not just in my office, where I perform in private. I have enough seniority to reasonably insulate me from blowback for taking some public stances. I've been doing what I can in person, but ugh, maybe I really should be speaking more loudly on a platform like TikTok. People in my generation are now in the position of boomers in my youth – managing the projects which shape the landscape of youth culture. Perhaps the time has come to speak up, and leave more fish for Kunta.
posted by 1024 at 12:12 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
I guess I feel like when we talk about "positive masculinity" (we don't talk about "positive femininity", why is that?) we're talking as if there's a really-existing masculinity that isn't socially constructed. There's certainly masculinities that are social constructed and vary with time and place, but I'm not sure there's a there there, so to speak. Every time we start saying anything about "masculinity" that's not "most but not all men are born with a particular body configuration and most of them at some point produce sperm", there are ample historical counterexamples - are men good at school and women are bad at it, or the other way round? is medicine a male profession or a female one? are men stoic and women complain a lot, or are women stoic and men complain a lot? The only thing that seems constant is that gender is so constructed that women are subordinated and men are told that they are in constant danger of falling out of the superior position through not being man enough, and that seems a poor way to run things.
To me this is why "being a good man" and "positive masculinity" are different. Negotiating what is expected of and enforced on men in our society is difficult - just the way that it is difficult for women. If people around you have very strongly gendered expectations of you, you have to negotiate those in a way that is both moral and somewhat livable, and that's hard. It's certainly true that men's struggles with gendered expectations are different from women's and what it takes to feel that you're being "a good man" is going to be different from what it takes to feel that you're being a good woman* but I really don't think that the answer to "gendered expectations where it's masculine to be strong and stoic and swole ahould be replaced by gendered expectations that real men cry and embrace body positivity". Women also cry and embrace body positivity, and are not infrequently strong and stoic and sometimes swole, so I don't understand how "positive masculinity" works here - either when men cry they are doing special Man Crying which is not like what women do, or men crying are being masculine while women crying are being feminine and it is intrinsically different for unclear reasons, or crying belongs to men now. A good man might cry, I think, but I'm not sure that there's a "positive masculinity" with a special kind of crying that is intrinsic to men.
*I really notice that we say that people are good men pretty often, "good guys",etc, but we never say "she's a good woman" and of course, "good girl" is something you say to a dog or to a woman if you are sort of a m'lady type guy. I don't, myself, think that the solution here is to start saying that someone is a "good woman" if she does X.
posted by Frowner at 12:37 PM on July 29 [6 favorites]
To me this is why "being a good man" and "positive masculinity" are different. Negotiating what is expected of and enforced on men in our society is difficult - just the way that it is difficult for women. If people around you have very strongly gendered expectations of you, you have to negotiate those in a way that is both moral and somewhat livable, and that's hard. It's certainly true that men's struggles with gendered expectations are different from women's and what it takes to feel that you're being "a good man" is going to be different from what it takes to feel that you're being a good woman* but I really don't think that the answer to "gendered expectations where it's masculine to be strong and stoic and swole ahould be replaced by gendered expectations that real men cry and embrace body positivity". Women also cry and embrace body positivity, and are not infrequently strong and stoic and sometimes swole, so I don't understand how "positive masculinity" works here - either when men cry they are doing special Man Crying which is not like what women do, or men crying are being masculine while women crying are being feminine and it is intrinsically different for unclear reasons, or crying belongs to men now. A good man might cry, I think, but I'm not sure that there's a "positive masculinity" with a special kind of crying that is intrinsic to men.
*I really notice that we say that people are good men pretty often, "good guys",etc, but we never say "she's a good woman" and of course, "good girl" is something you say to a dog or to a woman if you are sort of a m'lady type guy. I don't, myself, think that the solution here is to start saying that someone is a "good woman" if she does X.
posted by Frowner at 12:37 PM on July 29 [6 favorites]
I think the phenomenon described in the article is a symptom rather than a cause. It's not so much that Republicans and Democrats differ in their attitudes towards gender, it's that Republicans and Democrats differ considerably in their capacity for empathy and their basic grasp of reality.
If it is true, as the article says, that only 19% of Republicans believe that women face a lot of discrimination in this country, all that suggests to me is that 81% of Republicans either completely lack the empathy necessary to understand the plight of women in this country or are so disconnected from reality that they refuse to see it.
The lack of empathy and/or tenuous grasp on reality also explains Republican positions on immigration, social welfare, and a host of other issues. That's not to minimize the issues described in the article, but rather to point out that it is all part of an even more fundamental issue - Republicans' inability to perceive, acknowledge, or care about the suffering of anyone outside their narrow circle of experience.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 2:29 PM on July 29 [6 favorites]
If it is true, as the article says, that only 19% of Republicans believe that women face a lot of discrimination in this country, all that suggests to me is that 81% of Republicans either completely lack the empathy necessary to understand the plight of women in this country or are so disconnected from reality that they refuse to see it.
The lack of empathy and/or tenuous grasp on reality also explains Republican positions on immigration, social welfare, and a host of other issues. That's not to minimize the issues described in the article, but rather to point out that it is all part of an even more fundamental issue - Republicans' inability to perceive, acknowledge, or care about the suffering of anyone outside their narrow circle of experience.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 2:29 PM on July 29 [6 favorites]
I'm a queer woman who has never had strong personal feelings about gender and has tended to fall into the "can't we all just be people and not code things as masc or femme" camp. But I've gotten an interesting lens into gender and masculinity through watching my genderfluid partner.
Some days, she identifies as a man and some days as a woman. (Generally, publicly, she's ok just being seen as butch and using she/her even on the very masc days. The world definitely isn't ready for multiple shifting pronouns per person.) The thing is--her interests are diverse and they don't shift. Her morality is strong and doesn't shift. Her clothes may or may not shift depending on how lazy she's feeling. She treats people kindly either way. She's ADHD either way, depressed either way, and strongly tends to be Dominate either way.
Things that do seems to shift:
--her body language (hugely) and speech patterns
--her approaches to problems and situations
--the ways in which her specific traits, like "confident" or "nurturing" or "social", are displayed through actions
--how she is perceived by pretty much everyone
I have no idea what things about her behavior are biological vs. cultural. Probably mostly the latter, I think? But it doesn't really matter. Her experiences in both headspaces are different, and I think those differences exist for most people.
She's had a hard time trying to parse out what masculinity and femininity are to her and weed out the destructive elements of both sides. The stereotypes are buried deep in all of our psyches, I think. But her experience leaves me feeling like there is *something* to the ideas of masc and femme, and that both sides of the coin can be valuable and forces of good.
posted by quiet wanderer at 2:38 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]
Some days, she identifies as a man and some days as a woman. (Generally, publicly, she's ok just being seen as butch and using she/her even on the very masc days. The world definitely isn't ready for multiple shifting pronouns per person.) The thing is--her interests are diverse and they don't shift. Her morality is strong and doesn't shift. Her clothes may or may not shift depending on how lazy she's feeling. She treats people kindly either way. She's ADHD either way, depressed either way, and strongly tends to be Dominate either way.
Things that do seems to shift:
--her body language (hugely) and speech patterns
--her approaches to problems and situations
--the ways in which her specific traits, like "confident" or "nurturing" or "social", are displayed through actions
--how she is perceived by pretty much everyone
I have no idea what things about her behavior are biological vs. cultural. Probably mostly the latter, I think? But it doesn't really matter. Her experiences in both headspaces are different, and I think those differences exist for most people.
She's had a hard time trying to parse out what masculinity and femininity are to her and weed out the destructive elements of both sides. The stereotypes are buried deep in all of our psyches, I think. But her experience leaves me feeling like there is *something* to the ideas of masc and femme, and that both sides of the coin can be valuable and forces of good.
posted by quiet wanderer at 2:38 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]
Let's use some examples of categories that we aren't so conditioned to think of as mutually exclusive to illustrate. If you asked folks what qualities they associate with Firefighters and Doctors working for Doctors Without Borders you would get a lot of similar suggestions. Brave, selfless, compassionate, altruistic, etc. Because these identities are uncontroversially a matter of self selection rather than being considered innate and immutable and because we don't conceive them as being oppositional to each other we have no problem thinking that firefighters are brave without it implying anything negative about the bravery of MSF Doctors. The firefighters might get more descriptions like strong or sexy, and the doctors might get more words like smart or meticulous but we aren't as primed to see that difference as automatically implying that doctors can't be strong or that the firefighters can't be smart, just that these are broad associations.
Now let's say we have a group that folks have negative associations about and might describe as having a 'toxic' culture overall such as Corporate CEOs that we want to encourage a "Positive CEO Culture" for. Because we don't see any of these identities as being fundamentally oppositional saying that CEOs should be more altruistic or compassionate isn't taking away from those traits being associated with firefighter or doctors. Furthermore we can all recognize that a CEO exists within a unique social context and that being altruistic when filtered through the identity and social role of a CEO will often look different than being altruistic as a firefighter. When a CEO acts selflessly it isn't fundamentally different from when a firefighter does so (in the sense that we all have the capacity for goodness and self sacrifice inside us) but the shape that the act of self sacrifice will take will likely be quite different because of the context that it exists within and because of the social expectations that we hold for those social roles.
Now I understand that there are a whole load of reasons why the way we think of identities like firefighter and CEO are different from how we conceptualize gender but I hope that by walking through this thought experiment we can start to imagine how we might begin to see a way that we can describe masculinity without that description being in opposition to other identities and how we can talk aspirationally about how it could be better/healthier without granting any traits or experiences any intrinsic quality of masculinity while still acknowledging that these universal human experiences will take on different forms and qualities when filtered through the lens of gender and masculine social identity.
posted by metaphorever at 2:57 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]
Now let's say we have a group that folks have negative associations about and might describe as having a 'toxic' culture overall such as Corporate CEOs that we want to encourage a "Positive CEO Culture" for. Because we don't see any of these identities as being fundamentally oppositional saying that CEOs should be more altruistic or compassionate isn't taking away from those traits being associated with firefighter or doctors. Furthermore we can all recognize that a CEO exists within a unique social context and that being altruistic when filtered through the identity and social role of a CEO will often look different than being altruistic as a firefighter. When a CEO acts selflessly it isn't fundamentally different from when a firefighter does so (in the sense that we all have the capacity for goodness and self sacrifice inside us) but the shape that the act of self sacrifice will take will likely be quite different because of the context that it exists within and because of the social expectations that we hold for those social roles.
Now I understand that there are a whole load of reasons why the way we think of identities like firefighter and CEO are different from how we conceptualize gender but I hope that by walking through this thought experiment we can start to imagine how we might begin to see a way that we can describe masculinity without that description being in opposition to other identities and how we can talk aspirationally about how it could be better/healthier without granting any traits or experiences any intrinsic quality of masculinity while still acknowledging that these universal human experiences will take on different forms and qualities when filtered through the lens of gender and masculine social identity.
posted by metaphorever at 2:57 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]
Y'all are overthinking it.
Positive masculinity is just doing manly stuff without being a dick.
posted by AlSweigart at 6:36 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
Positive masculinity is just doing manly stuff without being a dick.
posted by AlSweigart at 6:36 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
Which's the manly stuff, separate from the human stuff?
(per above/previously, I have fairly low gender valence, which definitely affects how I experience this topic)
posted by CrystalDave at 6:46 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]
(per above/previously, I have fairly low gender valence, which definitely affects how I experience this topic)
posted by CrystalDave at 6:46 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]
Which's the manly stuff, separate from the human stuff?
The secret is there’s no separation. For the most part, “manly stuff” is just a label some feel the need to apply to human stuff. Sort of like Duchamp signing the urinal.
posted by house-goblin at 7:59 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
The secret is there’s no separation. For the most part, “manly stuff” is just a label some feel the need to apply to human stuff. Sort of like Duchamp signing the urinal.
posted by house-goblin at 7:59 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
You know, manly stuff. But not being a dick about it.
Like lifting weights and heavy stuff, but not slamming the weights.
Or playing catch with a kid, but not making them feel bad if they suck at catching or throwing. Doing a tea party with your kid is also manly. Making kids laugh is manly.
Driving a vehicle is manly. Like big ones, like trucks and buses. Or fast ones, like sports cars and motorcycles. Or crappy cars, like old taxis or rattling fixer uppers.
Not bothering other people for directions and trying to figure out the way yourself is manly. But never asking directions and holding people up because of your pride is being a dick.
Cooking stuff with fire or heat is manly.
Taking care of animals and gardens is manly.
Poking things listlessly with a stick is not manly. It's boyish. You can still do it, but you don't get any manly points.
Dancing in a way that makes people want to have sex with you is manly. Also, dancing badly but with confidence is manly. But dancing badly when you're drunk or making other people feel uncomfortable is being a dick. Dancing is manly, but also tricky.
Drinking beer is manly. Drinking coffee is manly. Operating an espresso machine competently is manly. Knowing a lot about fine wines is manly.
Wearing pants is manly. Wearing a kilt is manly. Wearing a nice suit is manly. Wearing a dress is not manly but you can do it anyway. Wearing assless chaps is manly.
Keeping a tidy workspace is manly. Making beds competently is manly. Being able to explain what different cleaning products are used for is manly.
Wearing sunscreen isn't manly. But purposefully not having a skin care routine because you're afraid it makes you unmanly is also not manly. Making fun of men for having a skincare routine is being a dick.
Having sex is manly. Being able to woo people is manly. Cat calling is being a dick. Saying some kinds of sex or not having sex isn't manly is being a dick.
People who don't identify as men can also do manly things. Some womanly things are also manly things. Some manly things are also non-gendered things. Saying some manly things are only manly things is being a dick.
posted by AlSweigart at 8:13 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
Like lifting weights and heavy stuff, but not slamming the weights.
Or playing catch with a kid, but not making them feel bad if they suck at catching or throwing. Doing a tea party with your kid is also manly. Making kids laugh is manly.
Driving a vehicle is manly. Like big ones, like trucks and buses. Or fast ones, like sports cars and motorcycles. Or crappy cars, like old taxis or rattling fixer uppers.
Not bothering other people for directions and trying to figure out the way yourself is manly. But never asking directions and holding people up because of your pride is being a dick.
Cooking stuff with fire or heat is manly.
Taking care of animals and gardens is manly.
Poking things listlessly with a stick is not manly. It's boyish. You can still do it, but you don't get any manly points.
Dancing in a way that makes people want to have sex with you is manly. Also, dancing badly but with confidence is manly. But dancing badly when you're drunk or making other people feel uncomfortable is being a dick. Dancing is manly, but also tricky.
Drinking beer is manly. Drinking coffee is manly. Operating an espresso machine competently is manly. Knowing a lot about fine wines is manly.
Wearing pants is manly. Wearing a kilt is manly. Wearing a nice suit is manly. Wearing a dress is not manly but you can do it anyway. Wearing assless chaps is manly.
Keeping a tidy workspace is manly. Making beds competently is manly. Being able to explain what different cleaning products are used for is manly.
Wearing sunscreen isn't manly. But purposefully not having a skin care routine because you're afraid it makes you unmanly is also not manly. Making fun of men for having a skincare routine is being a dick.
Having sex is manly. Being able to woo people is manly. Cat calling is being a dick. Saying some kinds of sex or not having sex isn't manly is being a dick.
People who don't identify as men can also do manly things. Some womanly things are also manly things. Some manly things are also non-gendered things. Saying some manly things are only manly things is being a dick.
posted by AlSweigart at 8:13 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
"Manly" is an additive attribute. Womanly stuff and non-gendered stuff can simultaneously be manly stuff. It has subsets of "gentlemanly" and "dad stuff". And some stuff isn't manly but qualifies anyway: being a waiter isn't manly, but having a job or doing hard work is, so it is technically manly. Some things are not manly. But the only thing that is unmanly is being a dick.
Listen, I don't make the rules and this is all just socially constructed gender stuff anyway. Don't overthink it, cause the younger generation is going to redefine it all eventually anyway.
posted by AlSweigart at 8:55 PM on July 29
Listen, I don't make the rules and this is all just socially constructed gender stuff anyway. Don't overthink it, cause the younger generation is going to redefine it all eventually anyway.
posted by AlSweigart at 8:55 PM on July 29
Don't overthink it
If you've figured out a way to deal with this stuff that works for you, this makes sense. Why think more about something you've figured out?
If you have not, or you're constantly dealing with people who don't accept your version of reality, any amount of thinking that helps you to figure it out, is enough.
posted by Zumbador at 11:52 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
If you've figured out a way to deal with this stuff that works for you, this makes sense. Why think more about something you've figured out?
If you have not, or you're constantly dealing with people who don't accept your version of reality, any amount of thinking that helps you to figure it out, is enough.
posted by Zumbador at 11:52 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
Reading the article I was struck that it discusses gender in contemporary America without bringing up trans or non-binary people. Which seems odd, because so much of the conversation about gender in this country (and others) involves the fact that gender is not determined merely by chromosomes, or hormones, or external genitalia. This got me thinking about people who are non-binary (which I already do o lot because I have some close family members who are non-binary), and how it seems that special vitriol is reserved for people who are assigned male at birth but have taken on a feminine gender. Is this tied to toxic masculinity and patriarchy? If you believe that being a male is the epitome of personhood, then it must be quite threatening to your worldview to see people who could be men choose (in their eyes) to become something lesser, i.e. women.
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]
Reading the article I was struck that it discusses gender in contemporary America without bringing up trans or non-binary people.
given the atlantic's history with respect to trans people, this is a good thing:
- in 2018 they published jesse singal's article as a cover feature which helped kickstart the whole moral panic among the centrists (shuffled off into the upper right corner is ed yong's prescient article speaking to how we might not be prepared for the next pandemic) and the publication was shit about how it handled the trans model
- it regularly publishes noted transphobe helen lewis who then writes misleading articles about trans people and the discourse surrounding us
- other articles it publishes about trans people follow the nytimes rule: maybe one semi-positive one to "balance" ten or more negative ones questioning trans care, whether our identities are real, whether we're too aggressively outspoken in defending our vanishing rights, and so on.
no, it's good this article doesn't factor in trans people. fuck the atlantic, in the strongest of terms.
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:19 AM on July 30 [8 favorites]
given the atlantic's history with respect to trans people, this is a good thing:
- in 2018 they published jesse singal's article as a cover feature which helped kickstart the whole moral panic among the centrists (shuffled off into the upper right corner is ed yong's prescient article speaking to how we might not be prepared for the next pandemic) and the publication was shit about how it handled the trans model
- it regularly publishes noted transphobe helen lewis who then writes misleading articles about trans people and the discourse surrounding us
- other articles it publishes about trans people follow the nytimes rule: maybe one semi-positive one to "balance" ten or more negative ones questioning trans care, whether our identities are real, whether we're too aggressively outspoken in defending our vanishing rights, and so on.
no, it's good this article doesn't factor in trans people. fuck the atlantic, in the strongest of terms.
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:19 AM on July 30 [8 favorites]
it seems that special vitriol is reserved for people who are assigned male at birth but have taken on a feminine gender. Is this tied to toxic masculinity and patriarchy? If you believe that being a male is the epitome of personhood, then it must be quite threatening to your worldview to see people who could be men choose (in their eyes) to become something lesser, i.e. women.
the term you're looking for is transmisogyny. that link provides a lot of sublinks, but a primer can be found here.
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:22 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]
the term you're looking for is transmisogyny. that link provides a lot of sublinks, but a primer can be found here.
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:22 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]
Thanks for the transmisogyny info! Seems like a powerful concept that I was unfamiliar with.
posted by TedW at 11:49 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]
posted by TedW at 11:49 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]
As a woman, I feel like I've generally just been puzzled by this concept of "positive masculinity" because I've only ever considered my gender in morally neutral terms. Like, being "feminine" to me just means a cluster of aesthetic choices like wearing dresses or makeup, particular speech patterns or body language coded as girly, etc, that are performative and neither morally good or bad. I've never once thought "how can I be a good woman?" or "I need to be more feminine to be a better person," but I have thought a lot about how to be a good person.
I feel like maybe a better way forward is to stop pointlessly arguing over which virtues are "masculine" or "feminine" (the answer is that virtue has no gender) and reframe the question as, "How can people navigate gender expectations imposed by society in an ethical manner?" It's not about men being manly or women being feminine but rather about how we react to a world that imposes meaning and expectations on us in ways that constrain our moral choices. For example, I make moral choices when I choose how to cope with misogyny -- I could do it in a way that is healthy, or I could take out my frustrations on my children (which I've seen so many women do, including my own mother).
posted by adso at 12:22 PM on July 30 [7 favorites]
I feel like maybe a better way forward is to stop pointlessly arguing over which virtues are "masculine" or "feminine" (the answer is that virtue has no gender) and reframe the question as, "How can people navigate gender expectations imposed by society in an ethical manner?" It's not about men being manly or women being feminine but rather about how we react to a world that imposes meaning and expectations on us in ways that constrain our moral choices. For example, I make moral choices when I choose how to cope with misogyny -- I could do it in a way that is healthy, or I could take out my frustrations on my children (which I've seen so many women do, including my own mother).
posted by adso at 12:22 PM on July 30 [7 favorites]
ugh, the Atlantic. “The Democratic Party appears to have made a conscious choice not to make young men a political priority,” Cox told me,
this **$& article is based on this shitty statement that may not even be true why even read the Atlantic?
This article is better written, seems to have data, which clarifies that we are talking about 10 points of young men. In the end, it concludes that it is about economics, which i don't understand, because Democrats are much better at economics than Republicans. can we have a thread on that?
Will Young Men Vote for Trump in 2024?
Daniel A. Cox February 22, 2024
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/will-young-men-vote-for-trump-in-2024/
The 2020 election was even closer. Despite Trump’s unpopularity, only slightly more than half (52 percent) of young men voted for Biden while 41 percent supported Trump. In contrast, two-thirds (67 percent) of young women supported Biden.
The gender gap among young voters is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2008, young men and women strongly backed then-candidate Barack Obama. According to exit polls, more than six in ten young male (62 percent) and young female (69 percent) voters voted for Obama.
Signal of a Broader Shift?
Although young men still vote Democratic, they have undergone a pronounced party affiliation shift in recent years. For much of the 21st century, young men have identified as much more Democratic than Republican...
posted by eustatic at 12:43 PM on July 30 [1 favorite]
this **$& article is based on this shitty statement that may not even be true why even read the Atlantic?
This article is better written, seems to have data, which clarifies that we are talking about 10 points of young men. In the end, it concludes that it is about economics, which i don't understand, because Democrats are much better at economics than Republicans. can we have a thread on that?
Will Young Men Vote for Trump in 2024?
Daniel A. Cox February 22, 2024
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/will-young-men-vote-for-trump-in-2024/
The 2020 election was even closer. Despite Trump’s unpopularity, only slightly more than half (52 percent) of young men voted for Biden while 41 percent supported Trump. In contrast, two-thirds (67 percent) of young women supported Biden.
The gender gap among young voters is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2008, young men and women strongly backed then-candidate Barack Obama. According to exit polls, more than six in ten young male (62 percent) and young female (69 percent) voters voted for Obama.
Signal of a Broader Shift?
Although young men still vote Democratic, they have undergone a pronounced party affiliation shift in recent years. For much of the 21st century, young men have identified as much more Democratic than Republican...
posted by eustatic at 12:43 PM on July 30 [1 favorite]
I will also add I do think where liberal conversations around "positive masculinity" fall extremely flat is the ways they confuse cause and effect, and try to push men to behave in more superficially feminine-coded ways on the assumptions that those behaviors are what will make men more kind, sympathetic, whatever when at best those things are just window dressing. It's all very cargo cult.
For example, the whole "men shouldn't be afraid to cry" thing. It's the fear and repression, not the not crying that's the problem. Some people just don't physically manifest their feelings in that way (myself, a woman who just never has the urge to cry, included).
posted by adso at 1:21 PM on July 30 [6 favorites]
For example, the whole "men shouldn't be afraid to cry" thing. It's the fear and repression, not the not crying that's the problem. Some people just don't physically manifest their feelings in that way (myself, a woman who just never has the urge to cry, included).
posted by adso at 1:21 PM on July 30 [6 favorites]
must be quite threatening to your worldview
See above about me being the nightmare they fear. I do believe that scapegoating of trans people is more than just a convenient choice of marginalized group to target. Trans and nonbinary people across the spectrum are a threat to patriarchy.
I would very much second the recommendation to check out Julia Serano's (previously) works. Her book Whipping Girl was key reading for me during transition, but should be illustrative to anyone wanting to better understand our society's deeply rooted, systemic hatred of trans women.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:42 PM on July 31 [6 favorites]
See above about me being the nightmare they fear. I do believe that scapegoating of trans people is more than just a convenient choice of marginalized group to target. Trans and nonbinary people across the spectrum are a threat to patriarchy.
I would very much second the recommendation to check out Julia Serano's (previously) works. Her book Whipping Girl was key reading for me during transition, but should be illustrative to anyone wanting to better understand our society's deeply rooted, systemic hatred of trans women.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:42 PM on July 31 [6 favorites]
« Older I'm What the Culture Is Feeling | The perils of starting a business Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This sentiment is dog dookey. Progressives shoulder enough blame for the failings of the democratic party without us also being the reason why men are demonized or whatever. Why the fuck is this something that's the fault of progressives, again?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:36 AM on July 28 [61 favorites]