The reality of the world dictates that men require a smidgen of "toxic masculinity" to power through. Try telling a sewer cleaner to feel more, or share his feelings. He instead should embolden himself and power through it.
Even if the material world didn't require this, it's required by a substantial portion of women, romantically speaking. Many women express their concern that "he never shares his emotions", but when he finally does express his emotions and what truly bothers him she finds herself unusually dry and loses respect for him. Some men never have to learn this the hard way, and they're fortunate. It's common enough that it'…
Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
51–60 of 1001 posts
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfortunate that you're (willfully?) uninformed to such a degree that you perceive these passages as slighting your identity or something, but what they're saying isn't controversial scientifically.
> slighting your identity I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything. But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable. Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in front the sex THEY consider stronger.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#53> New research shows that when fathers are present and emotionally invested in children’s lives, they are more likely to develop a stronger sense of self-worth and excel in everything from school to relationships. Regardless of the debate on how tough (or not) love should be, the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and impactful that we should be trying to address.
There is a general corruption of the concept of masculinity in American culture. It’s similar to what’s happened to the symbol of the American flag, but more insidious.
When I say masculinity, or masculine values, what do you think of? When you think of someone who values their masculinity, who do you perceive? Now do the same for femininity. Which model is healthier?
Men and women have, on average, physiological differences. These differences are pronounced in puberty. That’s when these frameworks matter the most; they thus must be embedded in childhood. There is no right answer, I think, but there are right questions that boys dealing with a burst of testosterone should ask themselves. That we’ve ignored or even repressed that seems to link both failures in boy and fatherhood.
It also seems to naturally extend to trans and non-binary kids, another situation we are culturally bankrupt in addressing. Boys understanding and speaking to their feminine sides is, ironically, a classically masculine strength in the way women understanding and acting on their masculine sides is, traditionally, a classical sign of motherhood and through that feminine strength. (The linking of feminine strength and motherhood is obviously dated, though as someone who lives in bear and moose country I can see why it was originally embraced.)
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It contradicts even the most basic of common sense It doesn't do that at all. The most obvious example of this is unemployment. When men lose jobs, they are at much higher risk to slide into social isolation, drug use and even suicide. Anti-social behavior among women in those situations is much less common. Young men without perspective likewise are much more likely to turn towards extremism, violence and so on. Mo…
[flagged]
There's nothing cherry picked about this, men do worse these days and are more vulnerable than women on a lot of very substantial metrics. It doesn't get more real and objective than looking at the rate of deaths of despair and the gender disparity there. I don't understand why you apparently perceive this as an attack om men.
This inability to acknowledge the vulnerability of men is, as the article points out as well, one of the reasons why there is comparatively little help for men.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#55My impression is, men are stuck in a world where they are told not to be men. Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.
I really doubt this describes the experience of 90% of people on this planet.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#56> New research shows that when fathers are present and emotionally invested in children’s lives, they are more likely to develop a stronger sense of self-worth and excel in everything from school to relationships. Regardless of the debate on how tough (or not) love should be, the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and impactful that we should be trying to address.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#57Later, the monstrosity called the "manosphere" completely gutted our movement and turned it into a grievance fest against feminism. They stole our issues but instead of working on them, they weaponized them against feminists, especially against us feminist men. Domestic violence by and against men, paternal rights, genital mutilation, psych support, male fragility and toxic aspects of traditional masculinity, etc. But then they never did anything about any of these problems but bitch and bash feminists with them. As if it's womens' job to clean up our mess.
Step one to improving the situation for men is to destroy the right-wing MRM. "Let men be men again!" is the cry of the regressive who sees the problems and plugs his hears screaming "Naaaaaah!" No progress is possible from that position. If you bother to look, the MRM does absolutely nothing to confront the problems men face in this world. Why? They don't want to. They do not care about men's problems, they only care about protecting men's ability to rape, dominate, and abuse.
Take a look at this thread. For so many commenters their problem is with acknowledging the problems. Pointing out the toxic aspects of traditional masculinity is seen as an attack rather than an attempt at resolving the issues. How the hell are things supposed to improve if we can't acknowledge problems or ally with the movement [feminism] that did the first work to outline such problems? Feminists have been pointing out toxicity of the "man up" attitude for decades. So have queers. Feminists and queer men are natural allies in this struggle to improve men's lives. But we've let proto-fascists hijack the conversation.
My greatest fear is that reactionary men join across class and race lines to form a united front for fascism. That's certainly the goal of the MRM. We must stop them. Let's go back to a Men's movement that forms alliances, rather than buries heads in the sand.
If we did that, we could have men's domestic violence shelters, an ACLU for paternal rights, education policy makers that tackle bullying and lack of emotional support for men, and so much more. But we don't because too many are lured in by propagandists who would gladly destroy democracy to protect the status quo.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#58> New research shows that when fathers are present and emotionally invested in children’s lives, they are more likely to develop a stronger sense of self-worth and excel in everything from school to relationships. Regardless of the debate on how tough (or not) love should be, the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and impactful that we should be trying to address.
Interestingly, only a few years ago, Bill Cosby himself made an impassioned plea to address these issues. He saw it a lot.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> slighting your identity I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything. But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable. Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in front the sex THEY consider stronger.
The “assault forces” are male because of rather outmoded rules, the military is a slow beast to change even when getting invaded
When an artificial womb is invented that can allow a baby to grow to term the dynamic will be forever changed.
Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the material world didn't require this, it's required by a substantial portion of women, romantically speaking. Many women express their concern that "he never shares his emotions", but when he finally does express his emotions and what truly bothers him she finds herself unusually dry and loses respect for him. Some men never have to learn this the hard way, and they're fortunate. It's common enough that it'…
The funny thing is many women seem to prefer exactly the kind of men everyone is complaining about, and not because they really like them either. Nice guys are always treated like trash. I can count the number of healthy relationships I've seen in this life on one hand. I don't know exactly how we ended up here; but unless things get better fast, over population will be the least of our troubles.
If a man is told by a heterosexual woman he's not in a relationship with that he's a nice guy, he should take that to mean she's not attracted to him. But this is confusing because the majority of men's advice about women comes from women, and the messaging they've received is that they should be a "nice guy." And being nice at a surface level is antithetical to things like assertion, which is a quality many women look for in men. Until the advent of YouTube, my impression and experience is that elder men have failed to teach men anything useful about how to interact with women, including what it means to be nice. I know of no men my age in real life that received any wisdom from their fathers besides "wear a condom."
So called "nice guys" are treated like trash, not because they're nice, but often the opposite. If a man is a pushover, lacks confidence, doesn't seem like he knows what he wants out of life, and is willingly subordinate to women, but he is superficially very nice, that signals that his behavior comes from immaturity or to get laid. Women do actually like guys who are nice, but a scant number of them are into men who lack a spine or need women in order to feel complete. A man can be nice but also be assertive, confident, and not be needy.
And sure, plenty of women are into bad boys, but that's their prerogative, and a man may not want to be with those women anyway.