r/MensLib • u/futuredebris ​ • 16d ago

The cure for male loneliness is feminism. Seriously.

https://makemenemotionalagain.substack.com/p/the-cure-for-male-loneliness-is-feminism

Curious your thoughts! I wrote about how the answer to male loneliness is caring, and how caring is really, really hard. Especially for those of us who’ve been socialized as men. We’ve been told that anything outside of going to work or optimizing ourselves by lifting weights, sitting in ice baths, and pounding creatine isn’t worth much. That caring for others isn’t a “productive” or “efficient” use of our time. That someone else will always end up doing it. That we’re not supposed to do it because women are naturally, biologically designed for it and we’re not (which is untrue). That if we do it, we’re less valuable, like a woman, less of a man. But showing up and caring is both good for other people and us. We have to do more of it.

3.4k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

545 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Nathanull ​ 16d ago

The cure to loneliness is getting back to basics of grassroots relationship-building irl

188

u/Nillavuh ​ 15d ago

IMO the bigger problem here is that people don't really have as much of a need for each other anymore. We can entertain ourselves so well on our own that we hardly need other people for much of anything anymore. I have started realizing this as I've been spending time watching a lot of stuff on my TV and playing more video games recently after buying a PS5...it's actually really, really easy to just shut out everyone else and entertain ourselves. In the past, other people WERE our entertainment. They don't need to be anymore.

43

u/Iamjimmym ​ 15d ago

Brilliantly explained. I'm divorced 5 years now and feel like.. someone really has to, for lack of articulation, grab my attention and hold it whereas before, I was just happy to be in any relationship. I'm quite happy with my free time, for the first time in my life. (It should be noted I have two young kids with me 90% of the time, mom is mostly absent so I'm not alone often. We'll see how that changes as the kids grow and find their independence more)

19

u/Mammoth_Juice_6969 ​ 15d ago

I couldn't disagree more when you say we "don't really have as much of a need for each other anymore." We are jaded by politics, overworked by capitalism, and pacified by the Internet. But nothing—not even the most novel, drug-enhanced AI VR entertainment device in human history—could uproot our primal need for community, personal contact, and genuine relationships.

Only when you stand by the hearth do you realize how cold it was outside. I fear we have grown distant, distrustful, individualistic. Yet I believe this is only a phase. At some point, saturation will drive us back toward each other.

Modern society feels divorced not just from human nature but from nature itself. Too often, we mistake our screens for more than they are: palliative self-care, nihilistic diversion, digital opium.

22

u/maafna ​ 15d ago

Right. We have so much amazing content out there that there's little appeal in "sitting around a campfire listening to someone's short stories they wrote after three attempts."

10

u/Prisoner458369 ​ 15d ago

I noticed this years back when I used to play MMOs. It went from needing people and you couldn't do parts of the game. To playing completely solo and never needing to every talk to anyone. The whole community side completely disappeared, to what felt like overnight. Even chatting in the guilds dropped off the face of the planet. 100+ people online, all doing their own thing.

5

u/Alt4EmbarassingPosts ​ 14d ago

I see having relationships like I see obesity. It’s a problem that we never had to worry about as much in the past, it just sorta passively solved itself.

With the availability of junk food and sedentary life styles, now you have to make an explicit effort to keep your weight in check.

In the same way, now that a lot of entertainment or services can be handled without another person… we need to think about pursuing and maintaining relationships more intentionally.

362

u/Randolpho ​ 16d ago

Which is the feminist approach to relationships

401

u/Nathanull ​ 16d ago edited 16d ago

There is a need to reframe masculinity to include relational skills. Relational skills are a basic life requirement and necessity for survival. When you look at alternative masculinities in different cultures around the world, you find that many others include concepts like kinship and care/respect for others. People would be best not to perceive that relational skills = women's domain 1:1, when all humans have social emotional and relational needs 

215

u/deadbeatsummers ​ 15d ago

Yes I think this sums it up - patriarchal societies see relational skills as a feminine trait. We need to undo that perception. They’re important for men’s wellbeing

50

u/Thr0waway0864213579 ​ 15d ago

This is why I love shows like Ted Lasso. I just wish they had better representations of male friendships for young boys the way they’ve been pumping it out for men.

37

u/Randolpho ​ 16d ago

That was a lot of words to agree with me, thank you

59

u/Nathanull ​ 16d ago

Feminism = men's lib / men's lib = feminism, yes ✊️

21

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

38

u/greyfox92404 ​ 15d ago

a feminine concept

Feminism isn't feminine. You're hung up on "fem" and having an adverse reaction to it because we're so used to treating anything femme as a threat to masculinity. Feminism is a gender-neutral concept. It challenges the masc and femme gender roles and the structure of them. That include men as a gender role. Men were writing about feminism as it relates to the masculine gender roles since the late 1800s.

8

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

9

u/kafkatan ​ 15d ago

Legit asked in good faith - when you say ‘specifically geared towards men’s problems’ can you give an example of one?

And how might women experience the same / similar problem?

As say - just curious as to your thinking

5

u/WitOfTheIrish ​ 15d ago

It is more accurate to say that feminism's aims are gender-neutral, but the movement itself IS geared specifically towards the problems women face.

Everything is nuanced, but this is largely incorrect from a historical perspective, and I would encourage you to expand your understanding of feminism. The further unfortunate thing is that exactly the mentality you express is weaponized against men to draw them towards movements such as MRA and away from feminism (at best) or against feminism (at worst).

This is not critique of you though. It's very messy, and I totally understand where you are coming from. We're basically at the point now where feminism starting with the syllable "fem" is an impediment to men taking part in it, which is caused by misunderstanding both from withing and outside of feminist communities. Which is silly, but also very, extremely real.

Where and how men are included in the cause and under the same tent is not always the most obvious. But this sub is at least partial proof that feminism is very much for men! From the sub rules:

This is a pro-feminist community and unconstructive antifeminism is not allowed.

If you're up for some reading, here's a decent list of some spots to start with if you want some further reading on the subject: https://www.feministmenproject.com/post/10-books-for-feminist-men

I have not read all of it. Of what I have read, For the Love of Men is easy reading, if a bit surface level, then the Bell Hooks book and the Nikki van der Gaag book speaks well to the core sentiment of what you are expressing.

19

u/Idrahaje ​ 15d ago

No. The problems men and women face are two sides of the same coin. The coin is patriarchy.

0

u/greyfox92404 ​ 15d ago

It is more accurate to say that feminism's aims are gender-neutral, but the movement itself IS geared specifically towards the problems women face.

The movement isn't geared specifically towards the problems women face. It's the people who are feminists are people and people advocate for issues close to them.

I'm mexican and I advocate more strongly for immigration than I do other topics because that topic is close to me. That's normal and reasonable. Does that mean I don't support other issues too?

It was feminists that created the first ever mens-only shelter. Not egalitarians but feminists. It wasn't egalitarians that legislated guaranteed paid parental leave for the birth of my child.

Calling it a "feminist" ideal still sends this message that only a movement catering to women's problems has the ability to sort this out

Do you see other groups exercising power to challenge trad masc gender roles? No, we don't. This is just you still clinging on to aversion to anything that sounds femme or womanly.

6

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

3

u/greyfox92404 ​ 15d ago

If you support some other cause, you are labeled as whatever-that-cause-is-ist. It never implies you care about that and that only.

That's not how labels work. Satanists don't worship satan. Stalinist don't support stalin. I don't only support women's issues because I'm a feminist man.

You're just using this to justify this idea that to have that anything with "fem" in the name has to mean feminine or for women. This is an aversion to feminine that so many men struggle with the toxic masculinity.

Feminism has done more for freeing men from traditional gender roles restrictions than any other group. No other group has done more for men. But you think they don't have men in mind? Name another group that has fought harder for men's gender roles.

If you can't see my point, then just ask yourself, why does this sub exist, when ARfeminism exists already?

That's a silly question. Read the sidebar. Not all feminist aligned spaces want to do the same thing in their community as the ARfeminism sub. This isn't a strictly feminist space either. This isn't a sub centered around political praxis, like feminism is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

12

u/Idrahaje ​ 15d ago

Feminism isn’t about making things more feminine. It’s about addressing the systemic oppression of women, people who are assigned female at birth, and the related attitudes towards things perceived as “feminine.”

37

u/Randolpho ​ 15d ago

Labeling it as a "feminist" approach to relationships again reinforces this idea that a more caring and empathetic approach to relationships is, as your label clearly assigns, a feminine concept.

No, it does not, because feminism isn't about femininity. You seem to believe that it is and, if so, you are wrong.

And the point is to instead remind people that it is a human and a gender-neutral concept.

Which is what feminism is all about. All aspects of human emotion are gender neutral, but patriarchy claims otherwise, and feminism is against patriarchy and all gender stereotypes.

Or, as OOC put it elsewhere: feminism is mens lib. They are the same movement.

29

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Masculinity is really just an aesthetic though. It’s not a real thing that people need to live by.

57

u/Nathanull ​ 15d ago

It's a system that gives people a lot of meaning in their lives. A lot of people are very attached to femininity or masculinity in their lives, and their identities. From early life and beyond. So it's not going away anytime soon, whether it's "real" or not... A lot of things that impact our lives are socially invented realities. It's a socially constructed world that we all live in, ultimately  

24

u/[deleted] 15d ago

You’re right that it’s a system, but that system is oppression. And yes, you’re right. People are VERY attached to that system of oppression.

11

u/Nathanull ​ 15d ago

What do you propose?

47

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

What should replace the frameworks of masculinity and femininity are frameworks that treat all traits as human traits, like integrity, empathy, accountability, resilience, curiosity, creativity and responsibility. None of these belong to men or women. They belong to everyone. If we stopped sorting people into “masculine” and “feminine,” we’d have more room to be whole people.

And that doesn’t mean masculinity and femininity have to disappear as aesthetics or concepts. People can still enjoy those styles, expressions, or identities if they choose. But they should stop being imposed as idealistic life scripts and appearances.

33

u/HeckelSystem ​ 15d ago

Not who you asked, but focus on being a good person instead of a good man. Identify the parts of yourself you love and cherish them, while being open to improving the parts that hold you back.

Let your manliness be an augmentor, not a restrictor in your life.

Loving being masculine and loving being a Sagittarius are both fine things, but should be given the appropriate weight in your life and not used as an excuse or scape goat for mistakes and failings.

2

u/sidenote19 ​ 14d ago

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” – Marcus Aurelius

6

u/somniopus ​ 15d ago

I know gender abolition gets a bad rap, but gender is a colonial construct.

25

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

Yes, and I think it’s important to separate gender identity from “masculinity” and “femininity.” Gender identity is about how people understand and express themselves, which is valid and personal. Masculinity and femininity, on the other hand, are concepts that divide up human traits into categories.

2

u/somniopus ​ 15d ago

I totally agree. And thank you for explicitly pointing it out. It's an important distinction.

4

u/CelluloidCelerity ​ 15d ago

Can you explain what this means? I've heard it but it has never made sense to me and as a heterosexual person, I always found it flattening of gender issues.... but maybe I just don't understand?

Gender constructs are and have been formed within societies. It's an intra-society dynamic. Colonialization is a dynamic between two peoples. It's an inter-society dynamic.

10

u/minahmyu ​ 15d ago

I feel like it should be the end goal, but... I feel like it has to be treated gently (just as much as race) They're constructs, but these have very much helped fuel those who have been oppressed to be such great forces and they embrace that identity of themselves instead of hating it/feeling less than like status quo expects.

Equity needs to happen before the next step of gender abolition. Just accepting people regardless how they identify genderly isn't nowhere completed. Its why many of these constructs cant get deconstructed or decentered or whatever. They get baked in and still used to discriminate in a different form. That has to get addressed first

1

u/somniopus ​ 15d ago

That's true, I think. I'm a forest person, not so much a trees person.

5

u/Dandy-Dao ​ 15d ago

You think colonised peoples didn't have gender roles until they met Europeans? You can't be serious.

-2

u/somniopus ​ 15d ago

Not all of them, no. Obviously I'm talking about the ones that didn't, not the ones that did.

Tilt at your strawman, though, if you want. I won't entertain you.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/minahmyu ​ 15d ago

Not also the person you asked, but to also along with other replies:

Remember, all of these identities are social constructs, meaning they're subjective and really just made up and changes all the time. It's also why intersectionality is important because being open minded to other walks of life, especially other cultures, can even highlight concepts we may only performatively do, or lack doing or could add on more to. What's masculine in one culture isn't in another. And it feels like we always need to adapt and adapt to the majority (how many marginalized people feel) instead of everyone (especially the majority) having more of the open mind and empathy of what systemic oppression does to people and how they navigate and creating an environment that focuses on equity to bring us all up to par.

And even within the same country, masculinity can mean so much depending on the person you're asking (masculinity may be different from a gay lens than a straight, or different from a black lens to a white lens, etc) We can see how the restrictions really hold back people, and the shunning, shaming and abuse the collective does when someone doesn't live up to a certain expectation (like what they view as masculinity) As others already said, it should be about be a good/better person than a good man. But, because we already live in this construction, we also can't act like gender doesn't exist and not oppressing and abusing those. It's also why I like observing and learning about other cultures because for some, men sharing umbrellas or hugging or just physical touch is seen as normal and not sexual. It makes you stop and observe your socialization this whole time and ask, "what is the type of person I wanna be?" And even me as a woman, I definitely had to stop asking or pushing myself to be a specific type of woman because that goes in so many directions. My intersections are being black, queer and now disabled. Growing up, religion was a huge influence on me, so I was pulled in that direction. "What it mean to be a black woman? What it mean to be a woman? What it mean to be a religious woman? What it mean to be a queer woman? And all of it just, contradicts itself that it got overwhelming and stressed me out and develop a lot of self hate because I don't know what society expects me to be. And society seems to look at our identities instead of asking the question: what kind of human should we be? I wanna be someone who is empathetic, mindful, caring but also set my boundaries and do the best I can with the limited ability I have. And it doesn't matter what gender or other social construct I am (or anyone) to achieve that, because all constructs would welcome that.

-1

u/redlightsaber ​ 15d ago

A lot of people are very attached to femininity or masculinity in their lives

Which is a big part of the problem. Perhaps the solution is looking at, and trying to solve this subtition of an empty concept for actual meaning, rather than trying to mince words to make them mean something else than what they do?

3

u/thatpotatogirl9 ​ 15d ago

Yes and no. It's also an important definition in the unspoken social contract of "do these things, look this way, and fulfill these expectations and in return you will be perceived as a man". While they're inherently arbitrary, things like gender roles are how humans set those expectations so many people will be highly resistant to changing them. It has to be a gradual cultural shift if we want people to be willing at accept it.

8

u/VimesTime ​ 15d ago

Citation needed? I'm not on team, "your identity depends on your genes and/or genitalia," but even plenty of strains of feminism directly contradict your statement here. Like, I don't want to be too snarky, but I do want to know where you're coming from with this.

I'm coming from a conception of masculinity that would define it as more like..."a constellation of traits, aesthetics, narratives, and symbols bundled by a culture as one--or one of a series if--of identity(ies), traditionally but not necessarily associated with men."

Like, when we were complaining about "toxic masculinity," we weren't just all mad men were wearing wraparound shades and having goatees. Reducing it to a mere aesthetic seems inaccurately reductive.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

I didn’t mean “aesthetic” just in the sense of fashion or surface style. You’re right that masculinity functions more broadly as a bundle of traits, narratives, and expectations associated with men.

My point is that masculinity (and femininity) are frameworks society builds to sort and rank traits, not an inner sense of self like gender is. People can connect with the abstract concepts of masculinity or femininity if they resonate, but they shouldn’t be imposed or held up as ideals to aspire to.

5

u/VimesTime ​ 15d ago edited 15d ago

That's why I asked for a citation, actually, I'm curious whose conception and definition of gender you're working off of.

not an inner sense of self like gender is

Because like, to someone like Judith Butler this is false. Butler doesn't even like the term "gender expression" because that would suggest that gender is something internal that's being "expressed" outwards, while she held that it was exclusively (or, later, near-exclusively) outside-in. Even the feminists I have seen who have added complexity to that scenario usually do so in the sense of saying that some component of gender identity is internal, in that there is something inside of us that either does or doesn't resonate with our social scripts and roles. But the social scripts and roles are still considered to be what the vast majority of the "internal" stuff is built out of. And the splitting of the social performative aspects of gender off from the identity isn't one I've seen attributed before, so I'm curious where it comes from, because you're not the first person I've seen online say stuff like this.

but they shouldn’t be imposed or held up as ideals to aspire to.

"Imposed" and "held up as ideals to aspire to" are two very different things, imo. Like, most of the time I see this topic come up, people tend to zero in on the individual, and that individual's relationship to society. It's framed exclusively in terms of imposed expectation and obligation, one the individual dislikes and wants to throw off. However, I'm curious how you handle even one additional individual in the mix. What do you do if two people both like the same abstract concept of masculinity? What if they build community off of it? What if other people then see that and emulate and iterate on it? The line between individual and society is significantly more blurry than I think this line of reasoning recognizes.

And that emulation and iteration...that's what gender is? The specific format we have is just the current edition, and it'll grow and change. And I don't see how that could--or should--be done away with.

3

u/[deleted] 15d ago

I get what you’re saying about Butler. Her work shows how gender is performative, produced and reinforced through norms. But even within that framework, there’s still a difference between identity (who someone knows themselves to be) and roles/scripts (like masculinity or femininity) that societies build and impose.

Other scholars make this distinction too. Julia Serano points out that gender identity (who we are) is not the same as gender expression (how we present through cultural codes of masc/fem). Susan Stryker emphasizes that trans lives demonstrate gender identity is deeply felt and real, even when it contradicts social expectations. And Jack Halberstam shows in Female Masculinity that masculinity isn’t tied to being a man. It’s a cultural code that anyone can inhabit, resist, or remix.

That’s also reflected in medical consensus: APA and WPATH both affirm gender identity as an intrinsic, deeply felt aspect of self. Masculinity and femininity, by contrast, are cultural categories societies use to group and rank traits, which is why they look different across history and cultures. They clearly exist socially, but they’re not innate identities in the same way gender identity is.

Masculinity ≠ being a man, femininity ≠ being a woman. They aren’t tied that tightly to identity. They’re frameworks layered onto it.

4

u/VimesTime ​ 15d ago

But even within that framework, there's still a difference between identity (who someone knows themselves to be) and roles/scripts (like masculinity or femininity) that societies build and impose.

From what I've read thats not correct? As I said, Butler--especially her early work--does not view that identity component as independent from the roles/scripts. It views the roles/scripts as what gender is, and the concept of the internal self as... illusory? Again, doesn't think gender expression is a real thing because gender doesn't come from the inside out, to her. Like, there has been broad trans critique of her work for that reason, which I believe she has responded to to a degree, but not to the point of this like...reified internal self you are repeatedly appealing to. Far more in line with the opinions of one of those critics, Julia Serano. (Again, as far as I am aware from what I've read.)

Other scholars make this distinction too. Julia Serano points out that gender identity (who we are) is not the same as gender expression (how we present through cultural codes of masc/fem).

Yes, but how those two things are arranged is not nearly as separate and distinct in her work as you're making it sound. From "Sexed Up":

Here and now—in the United States in the early 2020s—people who fall outside gender and sexual norms are often described via acronyms such as LGBTQIA+ or umbrella terms such as queer or gender and sexual minorities. In other eras and cultures, these same individuals might have gravitated toward somewhat different identities, social roles, sexual practices, and self-understandings—in other words, social factors also play a crucial role in shaping our impressions and expressions of gender and sexuality. In recent years, the sentiment that LGBTQIA+ people are simply “born that way” has become increasingly popular. While that phrase does convey the fact that, for many of us, our exceptional genders and sexualities emerge unconsciously and inexplicably (rather than being deliberately chosen), I believe that it is more accurate to view such traits as likely involving natural predispositions or propensities, although the ways that we express and make sense of those feelings and desires are most certainly dependent on the language, concepts, and social possibilities available to us.

Serano is, actually, who I was referring to by the "other feminists adding complexity" comment. But Serano doesn't advocate for a hard split between gender identity and gender expression, her point is more that there are some core leanings/urges (towards certain styles of play, assertiveness, passivity, nurturing, competition, ect) but that the ways that we interpret and interact with those inclinations in how we construct even our internal sense of self also rely on the same narratives, symbols, and structures available to us.

From her glossary on her website:

Some people define gender more narrowly (e.g., as synonymous with gender identity, or as merely a product of socialization; see sex/gender distinction), whereas I have a more holistic view that acknowledges that gender is “an amalgamation of bodies, identities and life experiences...subconscious urges, sensations and behaviors, some of which develop organically, and others which are shaped by language and culture”

That doesn't contradict the APA consensus, nor does it contradict the Jack Halberstam concept as you've described it--and I do also personally agree that masculinity can be expressed by women. But neither Butler nor Serano frame gender identity as an internal sense of oneself as a whole complete person that exists independent of socialized conceptions of masculinity and femininity. I haven't read Stryker, so I can't speak to her position, would you say the concept your working from is largely from her?

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

I think this is where it’s important to bring the different strands of scholarship together rather than reading any of them in isolation. You’re right that Butler’s early work stressed gender as performative and produced through repetition of norms and scripts. But as many trans and genderqueer scholars have pointed out, that framework alone doesn’t fully capture lived experience.

Julia Serano, who you cited, is a great example: she distinguishes between gender identity (who we know ourselves to be) and gender expression (how we present, through cultural codes of masc/fem). She doesn’t argue they’re completely separate, she argues they’re distinct but interrelated. Susan Stryker similarly emphasizes that trans lives demonstrate gender identity is deeply felt and real, even when it contradicts scripts. And Jack Halberstam’s Female Masculinity shows that masculinity isn’t “owned” by men at all, it’s a cultural code that can be inhabited, resisted, or remixed across genders.

This distinction isn’t just theoretical. Neuroscience backs it up: studies of brain regions like the insula and somatosensory cortex (e.g. Manzouri & Savic, 2019) show differences in how trans people’s brains map the body. Those patterns align more with experienced gender than assigned sex. In other words, there is evidence that gender identity has an internal, neurological component, a body map, which helps explain why dysphoria is so deeply felt. That’s not reducible to social scripts alone.

So yes, people (including nonbinary and genderqueer folks) may use masc/fem terms to describe how they position themselves relative to gender norms, and that’s valid. But masculinity and femininity are still cultural frameworks, not innate truths. They exist socially and have real effects, but they’re not the same kind of thing as identity.

For me, the key takeaway is:

-Identity is who you know yourself to be (gender identity, sexual identity, cultural identity).

-Expression/roles are the cultural codes layered onto that (masc/fem scripts, social expectations).

They interact, but they’re not interchangeable. That’s why it matters to keep the distinction clear, otherwise we risk flattening lived identity into nothing more than performance, which erases the very real experiences of trans and genderqueer people, along with anyone that doesn’t wish to be forced to interact with a world where general human traits as ascribed to being either feminine or masculine, rather than just human.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/jessemfkeeler ​ 15d ago

You can say that about any identity

3

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Yes, you can say that about any identity, but not all identities are just abstract. Gender identity is both internal and lived. It comes from a sense of self as well as lived experiences. Cultural identity, similarly, is rooted in shared history, practices, and community belonging. Masculinity and femininity, though, function differently. They’re abstract frameworks societies built to sort and rank traits, often in hierarchical ways, and are scripts that are imposed on people.

12

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

4

u/redvodkandpinkgin ​ 15d ago

totally agree. I think a lot of people misunderstand feminism in that regard, restricting things to a single gender like that is just another facet of sexism. Feminism is a movement for equality and inclusion in all regards for both genders, it includes men.

2

u/Ok-Seaworthiness2235 ​ 15d ago

I've never wanted to upvote a comment more. 

I had to tell my husband I needed boundaries with his BFF after the guy berated me over my husband leaning on him for emotional support (husband and I were having a hard time and I left for awhile). Guy wasn't mad at me for the problems in our marriage -- he was mad he had to handle my husband's crying. Because apparently that's only a woman's/wife's responsibility. 

1

u/AdumbroDeus ​ 15d ago

That's literally one of feminism's points, that relational skills aren't just women's domain.

-2

u/redlightsaber ​ 15d ago

People would be best not to perceive that relational skills = women's domain 1:1

People arent', but I feel you may be when you feel the need to continue quipping with these diatribes whenever someone responds with "yeah, that's literally a lot of what feminism actually postulates".

Almost as if you don't really like the word. 

6

u/rhodopensis ​ 15d ago

They’re ignorantly imagining feminism and femininity + womanhood are all the same thing.

Feminism = equal rights movement for 51% of the population that heavily emphasizes a truly egalitarian and gender-role/stereotype free way of life and relating to one another

Femininity = a visual and behavior theme that many not all women and some drag queens do lol. Likewise masculinity in the reverse

Womanhood (or manhood) = neutral state of literally being one

1

u/redlightsaber ​ 14d ago

When GP says that "masculinity" (in our context; they argue that when they harken back to "alternative masculinities around the world) doesn't include "communication skills", they're not really discussing about masculinity, but about toxic masculinity.

That was actually my whole point.

19

u/BaconIsntThatGood ​ 15d ago

You're not wrong but it's the label makes it a hard sell to the type of person struggling with this issue.

6

u/Randolpho ​ 15d ago

You have a very solid point.

7

u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl ​ 15d ago

I’m not opposed to folks calling it by that name, but I dislike the implication that having these sorts of relationships would be inherently gendered. Ideally, it’s just…. Human. 

3

u/Randolpho ​ 15d ago

Feminism is not gendered and if you believe that you may be part of the problem.

Feminism is anti-patriarchy, and it is patriarchy that is gendered. Feminism is explicitly against gendered stereotypes in favor of "just... human"

9

u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl ​ 15d ago

certain sects of it are certainly human-centric, but feminism has a long history and has stood for more than one thing. Certainly there are those who stand on it as a means of addressing women’s issues and just women’s issues, and I don’t begrudge them that definition. It muddies the waters in ways I don’t care for to call healthy relationships feminist relationships. 

10

u/MasterBob ​ 16d ago edited 15d ago

Define, and empower! 💪

Edit (making this a bit more high effort): This is the basics of feminism as expounded by Audre Lorde in her essay The Master's Tools will never dismantle the Master's House. This is in stark contrast to the patriarchy which divides and conquers.

15

u/Fortestingporpoises ​ 15d ago

I think it's probably that boys need to interact with girls more as they grow up. As is so many young guys are on the internet, or they have their male-centric hobbies, and then they follow those up with male-centric careers. They never spend quality time around women to make friends with women and learn how to talk to women so when they are interested in women they have no damned idea what they're doing.

3

u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl ​ 15d ago

I disagree. I think that the issue isn’t whether they’re interacting with men or women on the internet, I think it’s whether they’re interacting with people face to face in the real world and treating them well as platonic friends that they care about. Digital relationships and friendships can be pleasant by all means, but they’re simply not as powerful or as positive as real world connections. 

That’s not to say that you can’t find young men who have spawned wholly male-centric misogynistic friend groups— but I think it’s more difficult to develop that in person than it is online, and I think that face-to-face friendships in general breed a sense of empathy and ethics that’s difficult to develop in a digital relationship.  

5

u/Cavalish ​ 15d ago

And those hobbies are male-centric because a lot of them force women out, for fear of them “taking over our hobbies”.

It doesn’t have to be unanimous either. All it takes is that one dude in a hobby group to constantly put down female participants while the rest of the male participants stay silent to drive away interested women.

1

u/ciaobellapgh ​ 15d ago

^^^^^^ FACTS

1

u/sidenote19 ​ 14d ago

Here here!

1

u/mothftman ​ 13d ago

I don't want to replace the looniness crisis with a bunch of militias of dudes bonded by friendship. We can't expect misogyny to disappear because men are are satisfied in their personal lives.