No. There will be differences. There is something that drives me to identify as male. But the context of me and other men of my culture doing it is what defines it, whether or not women do the exact same thing.
Have you not been aware of those complaints in the past? I have. Certainly I am not a man like my dad was. And he was not a man like I am.
I gave an example of something all men do that isn’t seen as masculine because it’s also done by all women. Do you have an example of something that’s seen as masculine even though there is no sex difference?
Not so much. And in the past each generation of men seemed to be more liberal than the last (same for women). Now I regularly see incels and men spouting red pill ideology. A lot of men seem to genuinely hate women. There are men who blame women for wokeness and everything wrong in society, and say only men should have the vote. I’ve never seen anything like this before.
Sure. Defending your child and being dedicated to your family. Clearly something both fathers and mothers do and is considered masculine when a man does it, and “mama bear” when a woman does. Same behavior though.
The list is legion.
Honestly I think you are confusing seeing and hearing of them more with reality. The number of men who hate women remains small. They are visible more now because they get platforms and megaphones and media attention. In past years they just stayed in their basements.
I very much agree that there is a sociodemographic problem of lower achieving men being dealt out of finding partners, and increasingly being left behind in general. Some dropping down relative to their fathers’ place in the world. Passed up by “others”, women as their bosses in their dead end jobs. These men are going to find everyone to blame except themselves and women are on that list, along with immigrants, people of other racial ethnic or religious groups, and more.
That however has nothing to do with masculinity other than that they feel they deserve more because they are men. White Christian men in particular. They want that entitlement back. And easier to try to pull down others than raise themselves.
And a lot of women fear and hate men. The relationship between the genders is very hostile right now, and I’m is in fact a major reason for the relationship issues the thread is nominally about. Why would someone want a relationship with somebody who hates them or looks at them as subhuman? Or somebody they think is evil or subhuman.
The difference is a purely practical one: it’s the woman-haters who have political power. Not the man-haters. There’s never been a government as hostile to men…anywhere, as the present American government is towards women.
I wouldn’t call in “entitlement”. I think most men want to earn an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work, maybe be able to support a family.
Not referencing most men. It is referencing those allegedly “lot of” men @DemonTree says “seem to genuinely hate women” …
That group are trying to “win their small battles” … it is the “with honor” part they lack. They want to win by keeping others beneath them and are angry that they are losing. Society should grant them pretty women and good jobs; it is their right that they are being denied because being a man, well a White Christian man who is not an immigrant, is not respected like it was.
Yeah. They are “entitled” because they don’t want to earn respect, or have to convince women to want them. They want to be handed those things by virtue of belonging to the right categories. Something that not coincidentally takes zero effort on their part, and even more importantly doesn’t mean that any benefits will go to the despised non Christian and nonwhite men.
Because hate is the most important thing of all to them.
A couple of things. I don’t see how it’s much different from left-leaning people (some on this board) who have expressed problems with relationships or meaningful employment. Perhaps they are different in that they are more “moral” people, or it could simply be they are “harmless”.
Either way, for some reason the wealthiest society in history seems to have a large group of people who are unable to actually participate or contribute to it in traditional meaningful ways - employment, interpersonal relationships, romantic relationships, basically just living in a community in relative safety where one will be treated with a basic level of respect.
The whole point of actually living in a “society” is that it has rules and customs and standards for how a person is supposed to act and behave so that they can find a job that contributes to it, connect with their neighbors, and find a romantic partner to raise a family of their own (if they want to). So when those roles seem like they constantly change or become ambiguous, that leads to frustration and resentment.
And frustrated, resentful people lash out at whoever they believe is the cause of their predicament.
Another thing is that everyone’s hypothesis here seems to have been build through a lens of right-wing incels unable to attract women because they are losers.
I have another hypothesis that a lot of young men aren’t in relationships simply because they don’t want to be in one. If you are successful enough to support a wife and family on your income alone, why would you want to? There are plenty of women who will glom onto you thinking they have a chance to get you to “settle down”. Why not take advantage of that and just date as many as you can for as long as you can? And if you aren’t successful enough such that your wife has to work as well, that has it’s own set of challenges and frustrations.
Either way, the man has to give up a lot of autonomy, potentially making sacrifices to his career and personal life. Maybe not right away, but eventually the grind of day to day life year after year tends to wear on any relationship.
And at the end of the day, the woman can always leave if she sees an opportunity for a man who can provide a better lifestyle.
So I think a lot of young men don’t want to lock themselves into that.
Leaving the rest of the post alone for now, I strongly disagree that these men are unable to attract women because they are losers. For various reasons, they are unable to get a romantic relationship with a woman who meets their standards. Rather than examining themselves and their expectations, they decide all women are evil and become incels.
Something to think about. I think it’s more common for something to be the same in outline but different in details, though.
In the past there were men who struggled with dating and became bitter and resentful, but they didn’t find each other and create whole ideologies around it, blaming feminism and wanting to go back to the 1950s or 1850s. A bunch of individuals is not dangerous in the same way as a movement.
I’m not so sure the problem is lower achieving men. At least some of those online are men who worked hard and have good jobs, who are nevertheless unsuccessful in dating, and feel like they have done what society told them to be successful, and it hasn’t got them what they wanted in life.
Women are less dependent on men now, so value income less, and looks, personality, social skills etc more. So the men left out in dating are not necessarily the ones you’d expect.
This is true, and it’s a big problem. More people getting into relationships and getting married would help heal the political divisions, as it would give them a personal reason to care about issues affecting the opposite sex. But the political divisions help prevent this, causing more and more people to give up on dating. It’s sad.
Why white Christian men? These are not religious believers. At most they are LARPing religion because it fits their ‘back to tradition’ ideology. Or do you mean culturally? My experience is the exact opposite: men from almost any other background have far worse attitudes to women on average. It’s far from true that suffering discrimination themselves makes people more sympathetic towards others.
Us Vs Them. 
If you limit your view of “the past” to western democracies since 1955, what you say might be true. But if you take a broader view, the relative role of the sexes and animosity between them has varied a great deal, and gone in both directions.
My 50’s-era uncle-in-law didn’t hate all women, but he thought of women as possessions of men, and he bitterly hated his ex, who had the gall to leave him. Having only heard his side of the story, i believe he was a deeply abusive husband. He probably didn’t hit her, but he did things like give her the silent treatment for a week because she did something wrong about returning bottles, and told me many times about the first chicken she cooked, where the punchline was basically, “she was stupid and incompetent”. It was always embarrassing when he took us out to dinner, because he hit on the waitress in really uncomfortable ways, believing he was doing her a favor. I never left him alone with our daughter.
I would say that the whole point of living in a society is for people to help each other out.
Rules for behavior are likely to be necessary, to some extent, for this to happen. But to say that the rules are the point seems very odd to me.
Because many people want relationships, not just sex.
A person who only wants sex and values nothing else about relationships is very likely to be unsuccessful at relationships. If all they want is to get laid, it’s true that there are various methods to accomplish this; generally involving either paying for it, or finding a partner similarly inclined and offering them sex that’s good enough to satisfy them. Even doing the latter is likely to involve paying some attention to the partner’s desires and not only to one’s own.
ETA: Lying to a succession of partners by telling them or strongly implying to them) that you want an actual relationship instead of just wanting to get laid, if that’s what you were actually suggesting, is (in addition to being IMO immoral) likely to result in a whole lot of drama and a fairly unpleasant life. And, of course, none of the benefits of actual relationships; which for a high percentage of people aren’t limited to the sex and/or money.
In the past, they were in the 1950’s or 1850’s. And there were plenty of people in the 50’s or later complaining about feminism; though they didn’t need to appear as a movement because they were the background “normal”.
I agree that some corners of the net seem to be magnifying this and are probably drawing in some people to even nastier forms of it than the background 1950’s or even 1850’s.
We seem to know different people.
Most of the time I read threads here expressing these problems the posters are trying to figure out what they should do differently, or, to excessive degrees even, blaming themselves. That is the difference.
Again I am not so sure how large the group actually is, but beyond that: being treated with respect does not mean entitled to romantic relationships. And for many of these specific resentful men, one way to get treated with respect is to treat others with respect. Many are very poor at that.
Like here bright lines are often lacking in the real world, as much as some would like them, and the basic rule is “don’t be a jerk.”
That one of my three sons. He just doesn’t need the drama. Fine for him. He doesn’t blame anyone else for his choice. Maybe he’ll change his mind. His call.
The very cogent point made that they did not have to because society was run by a consistent mindset duly noted: yes, the same numbers can find each other now and reinforce each other’s dysfunction. True.
No they are exactly the ones I’d expect. Remember the power combine.
I mean by identification and not only in love. The issue is often not so much how well they are doing but they are now below these “others” … women, Blacks, Jews, Asians, so on. Sure not only them.
That’s therapy 101: creating the problem wasn’t your fault, but solving it is your responsibility.
About the modern boy: this thread discusses how they aren’t able to get what they want (esp. sex & love, the biological imperative). But then there’s the issue of avoiding what they don’t want. How’s conflict resolution doing these days, anyway?
Starting in the 1980s, boys fighting were pulled apart asap. Unlike what a lot of oldsters may maintain, that was all for the better.
However - what happened next? They were put in timeout. My own daughter, quite the tomboy (I know, an outdated, discredited term), spent many an idle hour in a special plywood box dubbed “the poor choice room.” I did indeed try to do my part when she returned home, teaching that discretion is the better part of valor, and a sense of humor is the best weapon.
But in her case, and as I continue to read online today, the immediate authority of the school punishes bully (and his gang) and victim alike. “Don’t make trouble or the only result will still be trouble” is shit logic. What are we offering boys besides an incentive to be avoidant, but no skills to be resolvent?
But a lot of people do seem to enjoy success (romantic, economic, or otherwise) in spite of, or even because of acting like a jerk. Isn’t that Andrew Tate’s basic premise?
At the very least, certain people get away with being a jerk because of their fame, wealth, attractiveness or some other quality that people desire. So there has almost become this phenomenon where being a jerk has become a sort of form of “virtue signaling” that you are a highly desirable person.
I honestly don’t know shit about Andrew Tate so couldn’t say. I certainly don’t mean to imply that the overarching rule of “don’t be a jerk” is a guarantee of winning… at anything. Of course there are “successful” assholes. It is just a basic rule of society to guide our being able to best coexist.
Romantic attraction and attraction for potential long term partnership (related but not exactly the same things) are not games that go those who follow specific rules, even if the matching that happens tend to follow certain patterns. My WAG is that confidence signals strength and power and some jerks are so stupid that they believe their own delusions. Which sells.
Being treated with respect would mean not being attacked and derided for being unable to find a romantic relationship. On the one side by people who believe romantic and sexual success is a measure of manliness, and on the other by people who think any man expressing frustration at his inability to attract a partner is an entitled asshole who believes women owe him sex.
This is a somewhat dated, but really good essay on the topic:
Your post talked about lower achieving men who are failing at life in general, with women as their bosses in dead end jobs, if you intended to include men who are doing okay in life, but failing at dating because they are short, unattractive, socially awkward etc, you didn’t make that clear.
When all you have is a hammer… This identitarian explanation is beloved by posters at the Dope, and as such applied without evidence to every situation. Reason enough to distrust it. I found some statistics from a government survey of incels in the UK and US: white men were considerably underrepresented in the UK, and as far as I can tell, slightly underrepresented in the US:
They also seem to be reasonably well educated, although I can’t find a good comparator for the UK. One third scored above the threshold on an autism questionnaire, which fits my expectations. And contrary to assumptions, their general ideological beliefs were sightly left of centre on average.
The survey didn’t ask about religious background, but this overview says incels are demographically, ethnically, and religiously diverse:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-55057-020
Personally, I think the major issue for men (and women) who are unable to find relationships is being unable to form relationships, not being ‘below’ some arbitrary other.
There are some very toxic man-hating communities on Reddit, to go with the very toxic woman-hating communities. I was also thinking of that whole man vs bear thing…
True. Just look at Afganistan, or Iran. But in Western countries? You’re older than me; has there been a backlash to feminism like this before?
Yikes. And very sensible. But this kind of confirms what I thought: men like this are much less common nowadays.
Let’s face facts, there are women who like that toxic masculinity. They want a man who is going to get jealous, is domineering, and even abusive because they see it as normal. It’s what they observed growing up.
There are some very toxic communities on Reddit in general. I suspect that spending too much time reading them is a bad idea; especially if it’s done instead of spending time with other people in a variety of other situations. But I don’t think they can be taken as a good representation of society in general.
And if you actually read that discussion here, you’d notice that there were plenty of women who’d choose “bear” who do not hate and/or fear men in general, and in fact have multiple men in our lives who we love and trust.
Exactly like this? Of course not; as I-forget-who said, history doesn’t repeat, it rhymes. But in general? Of course. Feminism has never not been dealing with a backlash.
And much of what we’d now consider “backlash” was “background normal” in 1950. Or 1970, for that matter.
If so, what are we worried about? Things must be moving in the right direction.
Or do you just mean that they’re less likely to have wives to abuse, because women are less likely to put up with them?
It’s hard to understate how damaging social awkwardness and early failures can be. At 30 I was an educated professional, a little taller than average, a well above average long distance runner, not bad looking, a decent singer/guitarist, and a friend to many. I froze any time I tried to show interest in a woman, which wasn’t exactly attractive. I got lucky by being in the right place in the right time, and it took someone who had the patience to deal with someone with very little relationship experience for a 30 year old. It’s taken work, but we’re together after almost 30 years.