When will men get liberated from gender roles?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

They seem to just want to reverse roles and behaviour for sure yet at the same time slip into gender tropes, look at feminist leaning cinema these days, no hero story for the lead , they land on the scene perfectly formed with little to learn

Well... I find the removal of gender roles to be highly selective.

Feminists push the working female angle, the professional female who competes directly with males in the workplace, but doesn't lower herself to the same negative behaviors. The problem, of course, is that these feminists don't want to compete or negotiate either, so they seek to change the environment to suit their desires. Competition is transformed into a negative male trait with associations to aggressiveness. Hence the need for gender quotas, and regulations to reduce male involvement such as borderline behaviors which can be interpreted as harassment (mansplaining/Manterrupting/etc).

Earlier in the days of feminists pushing equality, they talked down about women who wanted to have a family, rather than pursue a career... Then it shifted to women doing both. Which is why we see the need to provide an environment where women can do both. The approach is pushed that males aren't interested in parenting, and it was their negative attitude that encouraged a culture to be created whereby males would work (because that's what they all wanted), and females would stay at home. Now, we're seeing the reinforcement of the idea that since women are the only ones capable of bearing children, they have a greater appreciation of life. Men can only destroy, not create life. Which, in turn, reinforces the point that only women can nurture life and therefore are better parents. The link is made that the best parent is the one that bears the child.. so a further reinforcement of a role based on gender.

You see similar reinforcement of gender roles in woke movies, where the male is a predator, a stumbling fool, or an eager supporter for female needs (but with a underhand agenda of wanting sex). The females, as you said, are essentially perfect. Strong, confident, capable, etc. No measure of growth or moments defining how they changed to become who they are, except when they need to show that males are the cause for their transformation... due to a negative situation.

Feminism needs an enemy, and lacking one, they'll create one. "Male" society for the most part has moved away from sexism against women. Sure, there are individuals, and a few moronic groups out there, but they're the exception rather than the norm. However, feminism needs an enemy to validate it's position. So, regardless of how males evolve within society, I suspect feminists will always seek to pull males back to being the aggressor... especially now that we can be unaware of our sexism, with subconscious sexism.

Honestly, I'm amazed by the number of people who believe in, and worse yet, support this crap.

I’d be surprised if it did, I’d guess in a way the motivation is more to disable the feminist use of the term, don’t throw stones in glasshouses and all that, a common one I’ve seen recently is when a female teacher has been charged with sexual abuse charges against a male student , the tag line will be “when will we teach girls not to rape?”

Ahh, but it's generally not seen as rape by the female teacher. A large part of that is male culture supposing that sex is always a good thing... but society as a whole should be above that, knowing that an adult having sex with a minor is wrong in any situation... but hey, double standards exist in many attitudes.

It's the same with the "I believe her" milarky. Could you imagine males saying the same thing? Or it being even remotely tolerated in this modern society of ours? If equality was the goal for feminists or SJWs then this kind of thing would be shot down immediately. Alas...

There is a double standard for sure, in some situations women are equal in every way to men and in others women need special treatment because of their constitution relative to men, even though in many situation its actually in group female competition for example that maybe a problem for women which men would be oblivious to more often than not.

The part I find interesting is that most of us live in a technological age. Few women seek employment in physical positions where males have the biological advantage. Instead, most women are entering positions which are related to the mind, skills that aren't physical, etc but they still need a boost. Not because they're inferior, but because they face discrimination... even after 30 years of laws to prevent discrimination...

What I've learned is that no change will ever be enough until males are excluded for any activity that women want to engage in. As long as males are involved and have even a remote chance of success, that is an unacceptable threat to female equality.

Im sure Ill go to my grave without meeting a male who uses the term “patriarchy” in a sentence un-ironically but there are bound to be a few squeaky wheels out there and some looking for some media attention.

True enough

Central Bank

Central Bank wrote: »

Men would benefit by embracing and accepting their masculinity rather than feeling ashamed of it.

Ahh but what does it mean to be masculine? Along with what trait/behaviors etc?

Where is the balance between being masculine and feminine for a male?

El_Duderino 09

Central Bank wrote: »

Why do you get so sensitive and touchy when people criticise feminism?

You do realise it's perfectly ok to be critical of something, that doesn't mean you are "whinging" about it.

Of course. It’s grand to criticise anything (I’ve covered this a few times earlier in the thread) Context is the issue. In the context of critiquing feminism, it’s perfectly normal to criticise feminism.

In the context of a men’s issue, starting and ending the discussion by criticising feminism, and never actually getting on to discuss the men’s issue, is just whinging about feminism.

And whinging about feminism is fine just like whinging about football or Indian food is fine. But some people convince themselves they’re actually addressing men’s issues when all they’re doing is whinging about feminism. And that’s just a wasted opportunity to actual discuss men’s issues. And I think men’s issues are important and should be discussed, promoted and solved. I think men's issues are important, other people like using any opportunity to whinge about feminism.

sondagefaux

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Yet men are still ridiculed for wearing feminine attire, choosing careers like nursing, etc..

Are they?

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Feminism needs an enemy, and lacking one, they'll create one. "Male" society for the most part has moved away from sexism against women. Sure, there are individuals, and a few moronic groups out there, but they're the exception rather than the norm. However, feminism needs an enemy to validate it's position. So, regardless of how males evolve within society, I suspect feminists will always seek to pull males back to being the aggressor... especially now that we can be unaware of our sexism, with subconscious sexism.

Honestly, I'm amazed by the number of people who believe in, and worse yet, support this crap.

You and me both!

Feminism has gone the way of a lot of other protest movements, times have changed, equality is all but assumed in this day and age (in the western world anyway, i'm not talking about the tribal villages of Pakistan!) - i don't know a single person who believes that women are in some way inferior to men, not one single person. Different yes - that's undeniable, but lesser, no, i don't know anyone who thinks that.

But when your entire reason for existence is to fight oppression, you better find someone or something who is oppressing you - enter the patriarchy!

These oppressive patriarchs.... they don't have mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, daughters they care about? For some bizarre reason they are more interested in helping out random strangers, who just happen to posses mickeys than they are in helping their own flesh and blood.....sure, that sounds entirely plausible!

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the same with the "I believe her" milarky. Could you imagine males saying the same thing? Or it being even remotely tolerated in this modern society of ours? If equality was the goal for feminists or SJWs then this kind of thing would be shot down immediately. Alas...

When women come forward with these claims they need to be believed....No they absolutely don't, they need to be treated with compassion, dignity and professionalism while their claims are investigated!

Women, are not some angelic creatures, incapable of either lying or making mistakes. There is a reason why courts of law value evidence over opinion.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Given that there are no laws on the books enforcing male gender roles , havnt males been free for a couple of decades now to choose whatever role they want?

Most men realise that they need to be financially independent for themselves and their own lives and to attract the opposite sex. So what roles do you want to see changed? or what roles are you even talking about?

So just to clarify, is your answer to the question below, no?
“do you think men could benefit in any way from any change to their gender role?”

I can think of a couple but I doubt you’ll agree.

One example would be the old school role of men being stoical and not looking for help when needed. The fact that men don’t seek help for physical or mental health issues as frequently as women, leads to more men experiencing more acute and less treatable illnesses. The rate of men dying by suicide is a serious issue in my opinion. Men not seeking help for the causal factors, is a serious issue Old school gender roles such as stoicism is most likely a causal factor in seeking help. You might or might not agree.

Likewise men tend to massively underreport domestic violence against them particularly by female partners. Likely due to perceived gender roles making it more difficult to seek help, report the rates and need for support services for men who experience domestic violence.

I see these things as important issues and well worth consideration. But I suspect you don’t agree.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So just to clarify, is your answer to the question below, no?
“do you think men could benefit in any way from any change to their gender role?”

I can think of a couple but I doubt you’ll agree.

One example would be the old school role of men being stoical and not looking for help when needed. The fact that men don’t seek help for physical or mental health issues as frequently as women, leads to more men experiencing more acute and less treatable illnesses. The rate of men dying by suicide is a serious issue in my opinion. Men not seeking help for the causal factors, is a serious issue Old school gender roles such as stoicism is most likely a causal factor in seeking help. You might or might not agree.

Likewise men tend to massively underreport domestic violence against them particularly by female partners. Likely due to perceived gender roles making it more difficult to seek help, report the rates and need for support services for men who experience domestic violence.

I see these things as important issues and well worth consideration. But I suspect you don’t agree.

Domestic abuse is one area where there should be change, the Amber Heard debacle in the US is clearly evidence that its not about men speaking up as such but that the legal system, police and “toxic femininity” conspire to force men to be quiet.

As for stoicism and mental health, Ive no fixed views , I think however there could be issues with it being approached from a female centric approach though

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Domestic abuse is one area where there should be change, the Amber Heard debacle in the US is clearly evidence that its not about men speaking up as such but that the legal system, police and “toxic femininity” conspire to force men to be quiet.

As for stoicism and mental health, Ive no fixed views , I think however there could be issues with it being approached from a female centric approach though

Why, why, why, why, why, why, do you even think it would be looked at from the female centric approach? Do you think my question or examples above used or suggested looking from a female centric approach?

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

These oppressive patriarchs.... they don't have mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, daughters they care about? For some bizarre reason they are more interested in helping out random strangers, who just happen to posses mickeys than they are in helping their own flesh and blood.....sure, that sounds entirely plausible!

The part I find interesting is the complete lack of a similar organisation or concept for females. It reinforces the idea that women are agentless creatures lacking any power or influence, but also lacking the potential for either thing.

Females have held important roles within society for long periods of time. Mothers raising their children, teachers teaching their students, land owners (a minority but still present in many cultures) who had power over their serfs. There's no mention of women in positions of power to counter the supposed negative influence of males. Just as the whole anti-suffragette movements led by women are pushed into the background, or that in our modern age, the majority of criticism against women doesn't come from males, but from other women.

We have allowed society to give females a clear pass in any degree of responsibility for the development of society both in the past and present. The important influence that a wife has on her husband is ignored. The influence that mothers have over their children is ignored (except when it suits the agenda). The influence that women have over males while single/dating is ignored.

Instead, males have all the power and influence to inspire change... and yet, when there is talk about female rights, it was women who marched and fought for those rights. The males who marched and fought alongside them are relegated to a footnote, or ignored entirely. When the case of male rights is brought up, we should do the same as women did.. and who are we campaigning against? Yup. Not women who hold against male rights, but the establishment.. which apparently only males have any influence over to shape, and the only ones held accountable for how it's developed over time.

I often find these threads fascinating because females get such a free pass for the development of society, except where positive change was implemented. And that free pass is given out by both male and female posters... it's just something ignored.

When women come forward with these claims they need to be believed....No they absolutely don't, they need to be treated with compassion, dignity and professionalism while their claims are investigated!

Women, are not some angelic creatures, incapable of either lying or making mistakes. There is a reason why courts of law value evidence over opinion.

Yup. Hence, the reason why equality, actual real equality, is something that feminists won't want... because they would be held to the same standards as males.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why, why, why, why, why, why, do you even think it would be looked at from the female centric approach? Do you think my question or examples above used or suggested looking from a female centric approach?

If you take simple stuff like going to the doctor , getting tests done etc. for sure men should do this more , that would seem to be a no brainer , if a man takes better care of his car then his meat wagon then he isn’t doing it right. There are certainly plenty of online interest in male health , there are any number of forums, podcasts etc. with a strong male interest in health, diet , exercise.
On the general mental health side there are objectively good things to have in place, friends, cut out drugs and alcohol bad diet if they are causing problems, there are loads of good strategies that men ought to be made aware/more aware of. On the other hand on a quick google it seems 2/3 of people seeking counselling from the NHS are women, which still means plenty of men are doing so, so its not binary that men don’t seek mental health solutions from professionals.
Im just not sure what to quantify here? I’d expect male and female behaviour to differ on plenty of things and both sexes have something to learn from the others general behaviour while at the same time I don’t necessarily see being “stoic” as a bad thing , surely ploughing through whatever the issue might be and learning from it is an achievement?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

If you take simple stuff like going to the doctor , getting tests done etc. for sure men should do this more , that would seem to be a no brainer , if a man takes better care of his car then his meat wagon then he isn’t doing it right. There are certainly plenty of online interest in male health , there are any number of forums, podcasts etc. with a strong male interest in health, diet , exercise.
On the general mental health side there are objectively good things to have in place, friends, cut out drugs and alcohol bad diet if they are causing problems, there are loads of good strategies that men ought to be made aware/more aware of. On the other hand on a quick google it seems 2/3 of people seeking counselling from the NHS are women, which still means plenty of men are doing so, so its not binary that men don’t seek mental health solutions from professionals.
Im just not sure what to quantify here? I’d expect male and female behaviour to differ on plenty of things and both sexes have something to learn from the others general behaviour while at the same time I don’t necessarily see being “stoic” as a bad thing , surely ploughing through whatever the issue might be and learning from it is an achievement?

Sure, and being freed from a gender role would be having the freedom to be stoical and ploughing through the issue if that's helpful, and seeking help when that's helpful. The rate of men dying by suicide should be an indication that men who need help, are not getting the help they need and that's something I think is worth addressing.

I think you're in agreement with me on this - but let me know if you're not. And we didn't need to mention feminism or begin with a critique if feminist theory or having an aul whinge about feminism, to find an issue where men would benefit from more freedom in gender roles.

Simple fact is there are men who need help on a range of topics and I'm in favour of supporting those blokes. Discussing the topics is one of the first steps towards establishing ways to help them more effectively

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure, you can only view the whole question through the prism of feminism - which is exactly what you've been saying you're not doing while at the same time doing it.

I’m not doing that though. I’m looking at where the idea comes from, and what effect it has had on it’s originally intended audience -


Various groups, most notably the feminist movements, have led efforts to change aspects of prevailing gender roles that they believe are oppressive or inaccurate.

Gender role, Wikipedia


And the evidence I have suggests that the idea of women’s liberation from gender roles hasn’t achieved anything for women. That’s not a criticism of feminism, it’s a criticism of the idea of liberation from gender roles. On that basis, as I have said a number of times now - I do not believe the idea provides anything useful to address issues experienced by men.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And you see it as prudent to limit the entire discussion to feminism and conclude that because you don't like feminism, you can't imagine any way it could be helpful to men to free them from the current gender roles.

At some point, you’re going to have to stop trying to put words in my mouth. I gave feminism credit for coming up with the idea, because they did, but the idea hasn’t been at all successful among women in addressing issues which women experience. That’s not a criticism of feminism, it’s a criticism of the idea of liberation from gender roles.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

For such a rubbish movement, feminism has certainly shaped when way you think.

It hasn’t though, let’s not give credit where it’s not due.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do to phrase the question another way: do you think men could benefit in any way from any change to their gender role? And do you think that an answer to that question would also begin by talking about feminism?

The question is fine the way it is. I’ve already given my answer to the question in the opening post, numerous times now. I’m not talking about feminism specifically, that’s just where the idea of liberating people from their gender roles comes from. That’s why I examine existing evidence before I go bull-headed applying a theory to anything else. First I look at areas where it has been applied, and question has it been successful in achieving it’s aims in those areas. It hasn’t been successful in addressing issues experienced by women IMO, and therefore on the basis of my conclusion from that evidence, I don’t see how it would be any more effective when you try to apply it to men.

You appear to be arguing that something which IMO hasn’t worked out well for women could somehow work out well for men in addressing issues experienced by men. You haven’t presented any evidence or foundation for that belief. That’s essentially what I’m looking for, is evidence or a foundation for what your beliefs are based upon?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure, and being freed from a gender role would be having the freedom to be stoical and ploughing through the issue if that's helpful, and seeking help when that's helpful. The rate of men dying by suicide should be an indication that men who need help, are not getting the help they need and that's something I think is worth addressing.

I think you're in agreement with me on this - but let me know if you're not. And we didn't need to mention feminism or begin with a critique if feminist theory or having an aul whinge about feminism, to find an issue where men would benefit from more freedom in gender roles.

Simple fact is there are men who need help on a range of topics and I'm in favour of supporting those blokes. Discussing the topics is one of the first steps towards establishing ways to help them more effectively

Don’t a lot of women attempt suicide , men just seem to be “better” at it especially in a country like the US where guns are easily available? I don’t have a problem with gender roles but at the same time 2 people discussing this might have different pictures of what they are talking about. Anyone raising a son (no manuals on gender roles) will know instinctually that their sons will be judged by society in general be it work etc. and women in particular when it comes to dating etc. All I see gender roles as being is having a sense of how the game of life is played and to be successful at it in male terms.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You haven’t presented any evidence or foundation for that belief. That’s essentially what I’m looking for, is evidence or a foundation for what your beliefs are based upon?

Sure i have. I think men dying by suicide is a bad thing. I think men die by suicide at a much greater rate then women. I think men seek help at a lower rate then women. I think there are aspects of traditional gender roles for men including stoicism, self sufficiency which discourage men from seeking help for medical issues (loads of research on this).

And still you don't think there's any benefit to freeing men from the gender roles, even ones that contribute to serious illness and death. I think its clear enough.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Don’t a lot of women attempt suicide , men just seem to be “better” at it especially in a country like the US where guns are easily available? I don’t have a problem with gender roles but at the same time 2 people discussing this might have different pictures of what they are talking about. Anyone raising a son (no manuals on gender roles) will know instinctually that their sons will be judged by society in general be it work etc. and women in particular when it comes to dating etc. All I see gender roles as being is having a sense of how the game of life is played and to be successful at it in male terms.

Sure women attempt suicide too - strange question TBH. I suppose the question i'd ask next is whether you see suicide as a bad thing and if you think we ought to explore ways to reduce suicide.

I think you're taking an incredibly narrow view of gender roles but phrasing it incredibly broadly: "having a sense of how the game of life is played and to be successful at it in male terms". Be fair, that's a bit of an odd definition of gender roles. But it's so broad that I could probably say that dying by suicide due to a sense of duty to "plough through" on your own, would probably not be considered a very successful way to play the game. Would you agree?

There's loads of research on this as a cause of men not seeking help for mental and physical health conditions.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

Don’t a lot of women attempt suicide , men just seem to be “better” at it especially in a country like the US where guns are easily available?

To be fair to them (I use the neutral term as I have no idea whether El_D is male or female), El_D was not aware of this before I made the point earlier in the thread -

WHY ARE MORE WOMEN COMMITTING SUICIDE?

The suicide rate among women has increased exponentially for the past 20 years. The burden of trying to do it all just may be the culprit.


One conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that women’s liberation has simply placed different expectations on women, which has resulted in an exponential increase in suicidal behaviour and ill mental health among women.

And that’s precisely why I would urge anyone to think about the effects that liberation from their gender roles has on people - it has the effect of increasing suicidal behaviour and ill mental health. Quite why anyone is of the belief that liberation from their gender roles would reduce suicidal behaviour and ill mental health in men is beyond me, when the evidence just isn’t there to support their theory. The evidence we have suggests the opposite effect.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be fair to them (I use the neutral term as I have no idea whether El_D is male or female), El_D was not aware of this before I made the point earlier in the thread -

WHY ARE MORE WOMEN COMMITTING SUICIDE?

The suicide rate among women has increased exponentially for the past 20 years. The burden of trying to do it all just may be the culprit.

Hold on. I told you i didn't know the rate of suicide for women was rising. As far as I'm aware the rate of suicide is still about 3-4 times higher for men than women. And I think that's a fairly alarming statistic.

I can't speak for you, but as a bloke who cares about men's issues, that's a fairly striking fact and I think it's worth discussing and finding solutions for those blokes who need help. don't you?

Widdershins

Iirc men use more brutal and infallible methods. Im just wondering how familiar people generally are with the two main strands of feminism as they diverge drastically on numerous issue. Radical and liberal. They're deceptive names. And jusr as an example, Louise O'Neill would be a libfem, like most of the feminists people seem to refer to in the AH threads.

Mad_maxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Well... I find the removal of gender roles to be highly selective.

Feminists push the working female angle, the professional female who competes directly with males in the workplace, but doesn't lower herself to the same negative behaviors. The problem, of course, is that these feminists don't want to compete or negotiate either, so they seek to change the environment to suit their desires. Competition is transformed into a negative male trait with associations to aggressiveness. Hence the need for gender quotas, and regulations to reduce male involvement such as borderline behaviors which can be interpreted as harassment (mansplaining/Manterrupting/etc).

Earlier in the days of feminists pushing equality, they talked down about women who wanted to have a family, rather than pursue a career... Then it shifted to women doing both. Which is why we see the need to provide an environment where women can do both. The approach is pushed that males aren't interested in parenting, and it was their negative attitude that encouraged a culture to be created whereby males would work (because that's what they all wanted), and females would stay at home. Now, we're seeing the reinforcement of the idea that since women are the only ones capable of bearing children, they have a greater appreciation of life. Men can only destroy, not create life. Which, in turn, reinforces the point that only women can nurture life and therefore are better parents. The link is made that the best parent is the one that bears the child.. so a further reinforcement of a role based on gender.

You see similar reinforcement of gender roles in woke movies, where the male is a predator, a stumbling fool, or an eager supporter for female needs (but with a underhand agenda of wanting sex). The females, as you said, are essentially perfect. Strong, confident, capable, etc. No measure of growth or moments defining how they changed to become who they are, except when they need to show that males are the cause for their transformation... due to a negative situation.

Feminism needs an enemy, and lacking one, they'll create one. "Male" society for the most part has moved away from sexism against women. Sure, there are individuals, and a few moronic groups out there, but they're the exception rather than the norm. However, feminism needs an enemy to validate it's position. So, regardless of how males evolve within society, I suspect feminists will always seek to pull males back to being the aggressor... especially now that we can be unaware of our sexism, with subconscious sexism.

Honestly, I'm amazed by the number of people who believe in, and worse yet, support this crap.



Ahh, but it's generally not seen as rape by the female teacher. A large part of that is male culture supposing that sex is always a good thing... but society as a whole should be above that, knowing that an adult having sex with a minor is wrong in any situation... but hey, double standards exist in many attitudes.

It's the same with the "I believe her" milarky. Could you imagine males saying the same thing? Or it being even remotely tolerated in this modern society of ours? If equality was the goal for feminists or SJWs then this kind of thing would be shot down immediately. Alas...



The part I find interesting is that most of us live in a technological age. Few women seek employment in physical positions where males have the biological advantage. Instead, most women are entering positions which are related to the mind, skills that aren't physical, etc but they still need a boost. Not because they're inferior, but because they face discrimination... even after 30 years of laws to prevent discrimination...

What I've learned is that no change will ever be enough until males are excluded for any activity that women want to engage in. As long as males are involved and have even a remote chance of success, that is an unacceptable threat to female equality.



True enough

Feminism is a strand of the broader grievance industry, their are careers to be maintained, new intersectionalist courses to run

Money

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hold on. I told you i didn't know the rate of suicide for women was rising. As far as I'm aware the rate of suicide is still about 3-4 times higher for men than women. And I think that's a fairly alarming statistic.

I can't speak for you, but as a bloke who cares about men's issues, that's a fairly striking fact and I think it's worth discussing and finding solutions for those blokes who need help. don't you?

I do, but I also think that’s a different discussion than the idea being discussed here. The idea being discussed here is liberating people from their gender roles. It hasn’t worked out so well for women, and there is no evidence to suggest that the theory would work out well for men either. All it appears liberation from their gender roles does is places a different set of expectations on people. Then they struggle to live up to those expectations, causing them to suffer from ill mental health and engage in suicidal behaviour.

As you claim to care about men’s issues, I don’t understand why you would entertain a theory when the evidence suggests that the application of the theory overwhelmingly has the opposite of it’s intended effect, and why would you want to impose those different expectations upon men which the evidence shows that it leads to an increase in ill mental health and suicidal behaviour?

As alarming as the statistic of a high male suicide rate is for you now, I don’t know what you’d be like if you thought you were responsible for an exponential increase in ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men as a result of applying a theory which it doesn’t appear you’ve given much thought to.

Is it desperation? Clutching at straws? Something has to explain why you would entertain the notion of liberation from their gender roles as a means to address men’s issues.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do, but I also think that’s a different discussion than the idea being discussed here. The idea being discussed here is liberating people from their gender roles.

Well, the research would suggest otherwise. There’s loads of research that speaks to men who didn’t ask for help with physical and mental illness and it shows their perception of good male behaviour prohibits them getting help.

Very sad that you would argue against those blokes who’s lived experience of this issue is pretty clear.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, the research would suggest otherwise. There’s loads of research that speaks to men who didn’t ask for help with physical and mental illness and it shows their perception of good male behaviour prohibits them getting help.

Very sad that you would argue against those blokes who’s lived experience of this issue is pretty clear.

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about now tbh. The thread is about liberating people from their gender roles, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that women’s “liberation” from their gender roles has just placed upon them a different set of expectations which has caused an exponential increase in ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among women. That’s what’s pretty clear from the research I have presented in the thread already, yet you’re still trying to argue against that to impose expectations that only puts more pressure on men that will have the same effect as it has had on women.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about now tbh. The thread is about liberating people from their gender roles, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that women’s “liberation” from their gender roles has just placed upon them a different set of expectations which has caused an exponential increase in ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among women. That’s what’s pretty clear from the research I have presented in the thread already, yet you’re still trying to argue against that to impose expectations that only puts more pressure on men that will have the same effect as it has had on women.

Sure. It's a thread about MEN and liberation from gender roles so naturally you want to talk about feminism and women.

How is the fact that men site their perception if gender roles as a big reason for not seeking medical help, not of interest to you?

Is it more Important to you to give out about feminism or to help the men who aren't getting help? Men who have said their reasons for no seeking help include their perception of how men ought to behave.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. It's a thread about MEN and liberation from gender roles so naturally you want to talk about feminism and women.

No, it’s a thread about liberation from gender roles in which the opening poster does the very same thing you’re doing as a way to promote “men’s liberation” I suppose we’ll call it? You happy enough to go with that?

This is the opening post again -

mr_fegelien wrote: »

60 years ago, any woman who would have worn trousers would have been laughed at like a man wearing skirts in modern times. Today, women wearing pants elicits no response.

Women also can take up STEM subjects, don't have to get married, can act masculine, are leaders of countries etc...

Yet men are still ridiculed for wearing feminine attire, choosing careers like nursing, etc..

Why is this? When will men "women up" and not be afraid of showing their feminine side?

See? All of the perceived positives attributed to liberation from their gender roles (women wear trousers now, big fcuking woop!), and brush the mountains of longitudinal research aside which suggests that women’s liberation has simply placed more expectations and more pressure on women. You want to inflict that kind of increased expectation and pressure on men and think it won’t have the same effect?

A couple of men wearing dresses and talking about their feelings is your evidence that it’s a good idea and will result in reducing the rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men? The research we have already from the experiences of women where the theory has already been tried, has shown it to be a dismal failure. So called “liberation” has only increased rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among women. You’ve yet to address that fact.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How is the fact that men site their perception if gender roles as a big reason for not seeking medical help, not of interest to you?

More accurately - SOME men cite their perception of gender roles as a big reason for not seeking medical help. I weigh that evidence against the evidence we have already, and the outcomes still suggest that liberating men from their gender roles would follow the same trajectory as it has done for women -

Men would be free to wear dresses designed for men (big fcuking woop!), but far more men would be burdened with the increased expectations and pressure that being “liberated” from their gender roles has imposed upon them. Therefore in spite of the small benefit for some men where they feel free to wear dresses and talk about their feelings, for the greater majority of men it means increased expectations and more pressure than they were under already, leading to an exponential increase in rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men. You’re continuing to ignore that point. Perhaps you’d care to address it in your response.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s a thread about liberation from gender roles in which the opening poster does the very same thing you’re doing as a way to promote “men’s liberation” I suppose we’ll call it? You happy enough to go with that?

This is the opening post again -





See? All of the perceived positives attributed to liberation from their gender roles (women wear trousers now, big fcuking woop!), and brush the mountains of longitudinal research aside which suggests that women’s liberation has simply placed more expectations and more pressure on women. You want to inflict that kind of increased expectation and pressure on men and think it won’t have the same effect?

A couple of men wearing dresses and talking about their feelings is your evidence that it’s a good idea and will result in reducing the rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men? The research we have already from the experiences of women where the theory has already been tried, has shown it to be a dismal failure. So called “liberation” has only increased rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among women. You’ve yet to address that fact.





More accurately - SOME men cite their perception of gender roles as a big reason for not seeking medical help. I weigh that evidence against the evidence we have already, and the outcomes still suggest that liberating men from their gender roles would follow the same trajectory as it has done for women -

Men would be free to wear dresses designed for men (big fcuking woop!), but far more men would be burdened with the increased expectations and pressure that being “liberated” from their gender roles has imposed upon them. Therefore in spite of the small benefit for some men where they feel free to wear dresses and talk about their feelings, for the greater majority of men it means increased expectations and more pressure than they were under already, leading to an exponential increase in rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men. You’re continuing to ignore that point. Perhaps you’d care to address it in your response.

That’s the thing isn’t it, part of the “liberation” is to take down male behaviour that is deemed toxic by the enlightened ones, so basically men become shamed for doing all the things associated with traditional male behaviour. In the US which is a couple of decades “ahead” of us, it starts out in the education system where boyish behaviour is seen as toxic. How much stress and mental illness is that going to lead to down the line?

Donnielighto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because men in women’s clothing look ridiculous, and people aren’t afraid to show their disdain for such nonsense. Men are ridiculed for taking low-paying ****e jobs because they’re expected to be capable of more. Men don’t have a “feminine side”, they’re men - masculine. Men are expected to behave like men and not behave like women. Why should men who want to behave like women expect people to accept that sort of behaviour?

I don’t think anyone is “afraid” to show their feminine side or their masculine side. I think they’re fully conscious that there are social standards expected of them and nobody in society can simply be who they want and expect other people should just accept that. Society has no time for selfish individuals.

You dress up when you're alone?

wakka12

Generations of women fought very hard to afford modern women those privileges. They experienced great ridicule and prejudice. The issues you have listed in the OP will never change as there are not a large number of men fighting for them to be accepted, rather the opposite really..in the case of men wearing skirts for example, probably more women would be supportive than men would.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s a thread about liberation from gender roles in which the opening poster does the very same thing you’re doing as a way to promote “men’s liberation” I suppose we’ll call it? You happy enough to go with that?

This is the opening post again -





See? All of the perceived positives attributed to liberation from their gender roles (women wear trousers now, big fcuking woop!), and brush the mountains of longitudinal research aside which suggests that women’s liberation has simply placed more expectations and more pressure on women. You want to inflict that kind of increased expectation and pressure on men and think it won’t have the same effect?

A couple of men wearing dresses and talking about their feelings is your evidence that it’s a good idea and will result in reducing the rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men? The research we have already from the experiences of women where the theory has already been tried, has shown it to be a dismal failure. So called “liberation” has only increased rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among women. You’ve yet to address that fact.





More accurately - SOME men cite their perception of gender roles as a big reason for not seeking medical help. I weigh that evidence against the evidence we have already, and the outcomes still suggest that liberating men from their gender roles would follow the same trajectory as it has done for women -

Men would be free to wear dresses designed for men (big fcuking woop!), but far more men would be burdened with the increased expectations and pressure that being “liberated” from their gender roles has imposed upon them. Therefore in spite of the small benefit for some men where they feel free to wear dresses and talk about their feelings, for the greater majority of men it means increased expectations and more pressure than they were under already, leading to an exponential increase in rates of ill mental health and suicidal behaviour among men. You’re continuing to ignore that point. Perhaps you’d care to address it in your response.

Where are you getting the stuff about me wanting men to wear dresses? Anyone looking for a straw man, I’ve found one here.

Yeah, some men site their perception of gender roles as reason for not seeking help which leads to greater illness and more deaths. I think that’s actually a pretty big issue abd I think it is an example of an area that could be targeted to give men the skills needed to seek help when they need it. I don’t see freeing men from that particular role as being the terrible fate you seem to think it is.

I haven’t even challenged you on the notion that the cause of women’s suicide rate increase in recent years is because of their gender role liberation. You simply repeating it with certainty isn’t the all encompassing argument you seem to think it is. In short, the claim you made is a stretch.

But I’m fascinated that you’ve convinced yourself that I have an interest in more men wearing dresses. What do you think gender roles mean? Do you think that it would be necessary to completely bin the concept if masculine gender role in order to make it easier for men to seek medical help?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

That’s the thing isn’t it, part of the “liberation” is to take down male behaviour that is deemed toxic by the enlightened ones, so basically men become shamed for doing all the things associated with traditional male behaviour. In the US which is a couple of decades “ahead” of us, it starts out in the education system where boyish behaviour is seen as toxic. How much stress and mental illness is that going to lead to down the line?

Have I done what you’re talking about in this post?

One eyed Jack

wakka12 wrote: »

Generations of women fought very hard to afford modern women those privileges. They experienced great ridicule and prejudice. The issues you have listed in the OP will never change as there are not a large number of men fighting for them to be accepted, rather the opposite really. in the case of men wearing skirts for example, probably more women would be supportive than men would.

And why would they, when the cost of those privileges has women themselves questioning has it been worth it? That’s the thing about seeing other people’s ‘privileges’, you’re seeing all the positives, and ignoring the negatives. On balance, it can easily be demonstrated that the cost of privilege to women simply hasn’t been worth it. Women are paying an incredibly high cost for a small minority of women who only saw all the privileges men have, and none of the cost. The intent of women’s liberation was to free women from social expectations of their gender, but it hasn’t quite gone according to plan, because they failed to account for what it would cost women -


According to the National Institute of Mental Health and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, on average 123 people commit suicide in the U.S. every day. For every suicide, 25 more attempt it. More men are die by suicide than women, largely due to the methods they choose—guns, single car accidents and hanging.

Yet more women attempt suicide than men. In most Western countries there is a “gender paradox” for suicide: Women have more suicidal ideation than men and attempt suicide three to four times as often as men, but men are three and a half times more likely to kill themselves.

...

The numbers are startling: suicides among women have increased overall by 24 percent—the highest rate ever reported, according to the CDC study on suicide. The report indicates among white women, that increase was 60 percent as opposed to 28 percent in men. Certain groups of women are most at risk. Tragically, the number of suicides among Native American women has nearly doubled: It is 89 percent higher than in 1999. In March 2018, the CDC reported that American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) have the highest rate of suicide of any racial or ethnic group. What’s more, the rise in suicides among women appears to be a global phenomenon, with reports in the U.K., Australia, South Africa, Canada, and Scandinavia, recording similar trends to that in the United States.

This 30-year high the CDC tracked with their data saw increases in every age group and among men as well as women. But the rise in suicides was higher for women and worst for middle-aged women, those the CDC places in the 35 to 64 age group. Women aged 45 to 64 already have the highest rate of suicide of all age groups.

The resounding question is: Why would women at the peak of their lives be most likely to kill themselves?

The answers are surprisingly simple: Women are overburdened with work both at their jobs and at home and at both the expectations are far higher for women than for men. At work, women are expected to work harder than men and to accede to standards not applied to men.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said we need to start by discussing the the theory of liberation of people from gender roles.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I would just start by looking at men and gender roles.

I think I would go right back to basics on it too and actually try to ascertain what the "gender roles" even are.

In many threads in the past - like on the subject of gay parenting and the imaginary "ideal" of one man one woman as parents - I have sought an explanation of what we mean when we say things like "be a man" or "man up" or "masculine" or "feminine" or "male role model" or "female role model" and so on.

Why when we pretend for example that children need a "male role model" to have an ideal upbringing - is no one seemingly capable to identify one attribute in what that even means - let alone show it to be a requirement, benefit, "ideal", or even a "nice to have"?

One of two things generally happens. Either the person asked disappears and never answers - or they list a lot of attributes that are desirable in people in general - not even remotely specific to men or women or mothers or fathers.

So has liberation form gender roles been a failure? Or is the failure to be clear what we even think this means?

If people can not even define what they believe the roles to be in the first place - then any attempt to liberate them from it is only going to maximize their uncertainty and feeling of being lost. It is not going to be positive. How could it be? They will just conform to the old roles - while also trying to play with the new ones - and try to be all things to everyone.

So rather than just liberate people from gender roles - why can not we first be clear what those current roles even are - what we are liberating them from - and why?

Otherwise you might as well walk up to strangers - click your fingers in their face - declare to have liberated them from their shackles - and walk away leaving them wonder if or how their life is meant to have been altered in any way.

All that said -

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven’t even challenged you on the notion that the cause of women’s suicide rate increase in recent years is because of their gender role liberation.

- the very idea we could go to something as socially complex as suicide and point to one single vague factor as culprit is remarkably simplistic and nonsense thinking. There has been a number of changes large and small to our society over recent decades. To think we can simplistically point to a group as general as "women" and pick out one thing to blame for this is beyond nonsense. It would be dangerously idiotic for us to do so.

Even if liberation from gender roles could be shown to be linked to this increase - which as you observe it really has not been on this thread by anyone - then to think it is to blame for anything but a fraction of the observed increase would be fantastical nonsense. In fact we would have to break down even that assumption because for every X people it caused an increase in - there would be Y people it saved. The question is whether X>Y or Y>X.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I presented plenty of evidence that the theory espoused by feminists has been a dismal failure in serving the interests of women.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s what’s pretty clear from the research I have presented in the thread already

Can you let me know where so I can follow the research myself? I genuinely seem to have missed your links - except two links to the same opinion piece in a magazine. And opinion piece that not only is not "plenty of evidence" but in fact itself cites someone commenting directly on how remarkably few studies have been done on the subject!

In fact you appear over posts #221 #232 and #267 to have gone from claiming there not been much evaluation done and it should be - to claiming it has been shown to be a failure by evidence - to then claiming it has not only been a failure but has objectively caused actual harm like suicide. Which is quite a progression.

I however find the entire thing powerfully vague. No specifics about which gender roles you even mean - how you think liberation has manifested - and what measures of success or failure you use.

Could you be clear therefore on which roles you think they were liberated from specifically? And then draw a causal line from that/those to the detriments like suicide you mention?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The suicide rate among women has increased exponentially for the past 20 years. The burden of trying to do it all just may be the culprit.

That sentence and another one in the same article which reads "expectations are far higher for women than for men" seem to suggest something different. Not that liberation from gender roles has been good or bad. But that we have in fact _not_ liberated them from gender roles - but just added new ones on top of the old.

So to answer the op question "When will men get liberated from gender roles?" I think one good answer will be "When we start trying to liberate _everyone_ from gender roles" or another good answer will be "when we do away with this useless nebulous concept of gender roles entirely".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would urge anyone to think about the effects that liberation from their gender roles has on people - it has the effect of increasing suicidal behaviour and ill mental health.

Does it? Which evidence specifically do you think backs that claim up?

Is there a correlation - causation error here where we are seeing a rise in suicide rates and merely guessing as to the cause? How do we know the guessed cause is not actually _slowing_ what the massive increase may otherwise have been?

Many sentences in the magazine opinion piece you linked to in fact suggest the opposite. They speak of women being held to new higher standards while also the "burden of caring for aging parents and/or in-laws" and other historical gender roles are still in effect.

Therefore rather than the issue being a liberation from gender roles - the article seems to be blaming those very gender roles for the issue!

To evaluate the success of the effect of liberation from gender roles therefore - we would need to _actually_ liberate people from gender roles. Not just pretend to have.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

yet you’re still trying to argue against that to impose expectations that only puts more pressure on men that will have the same effect as it has had on women.

Would it though? One issue I have is that we have attempted liberation from gender roles in only one gender mostly. The detrimental effects of which is the one piece of common ground you and I have here so far. I genuinely think _that_ has had bad effects.

Going from a situation where we fiddle with one side of an equation - to one where we are now fiddling with both sides of the equation - leaves us unable to simply assume the effects will be comparable. Perhaps the opposite in fact!

Having a flow of "roles" - and therefore duties and expectations and responsibilities - in only one direction is of course going to increase stress, mental health issues, suicide and other things we would best avoid. We can not assume that a flow in both directions would have comparable results.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And why would they, when the cost of those privileges has women themselves questioning has it been worth it? That’s the thing about seeing other people’s ‘privileges’, you’re seeing all the positives, and ignoring the negatives. On balance, it can easily be demonstrated that the cost of privilege to women simply hasn’t been worth it. Women are paying an incredibly high cost for a small minority of women who only saw all the privileges men have, and none of the cost. The intent of women’s liberation was to free women from social expectations of their gender, but it hasn’t quite gone according to plan, because they failed to account for what it would cost women

You’re getting great mileage out of that one DameMagazine.com article.

I’m sure the women will be delighted that you’re telling them what they’re thinking. I’m sure the women could have told us themselves if they were minded but instead waited for you to speak for them.

Seriously, what makes you so confident you know what the women are thinking (presumably they all think the same thing?). Is the answer in your favourite DameMagazine article you linked to above?

I’m joking here but in all seriousness, when you find yourself presuming to know what a whole other group of people are thinking, then you might be beginning to believe your own hype. But of perspective needed maybe.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m joking here but in all seriousness, when you find yourself presuming to know what a whole other group of people are thinking, then you might be beginning to believe your own hype. But of perspective needed maybe.

The fcuking irony :pac:

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fcuking irony :pac:

Not really. I'm going by the evidence of the research. You're going by your love of that Dame Magazine article. Those aren't the same thing.

I'm paraphrasing what the men have said to the researchers. You're presuming to know what the women are thinking em masse.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think I would go right back to basics on it too and actually try to ascertain what the "gender roles" even are.

In many threads in the past - like on the subject of gay parenting and the imaginary "ideal" of one man one woman as parents - I have sought an explanation of what we mean when we say things like "be a man" or "man up" or "masculine" or "feminine" or "male role model" or "female role model" and so on.

Why when we pretend for example that children need a "male role model" to have an ideal upbringing - is no one seemingly capable to identify one attribute in what that even means - let alone show it to be a requirement, benefit, "ideal", or even a "nice to have"?

One of two things generally happens. Either the person asked disappears and never answers - or they list a lot of attributes that are desirable in people in general - not even remotely specific to men or women or mothers or fathers.

So has liberation form gender roles been a failure? Or is the failure to be clear what we even think this means?

If people can not even define what they believe the roles to be in the first place - then any attempt to liberate them from it is only going to maximize their uncertainty and feeling of being lost. It is not going to be positive. How could it be? They will just conform to the old roles - while also trying to play with the new ones - and try to be all things to everyone.

So rather than just liberate people from gender roles - why can not we first be clear what those current roles even are - what we are liberating them from - and why?

Otherwise you might as well walk up to strangers - click your fingers in their face - declare to have liberated them from their shackles - and walk away leaving them wonder if or how their life is meant to have been altered in any way.

All that said -



- the very idea we could go to something as socially complex as suicide and point to one single vague factor as culprit is remarkably simplistic and nonsense thinking. There has been a number of changes large and small to our society over recent decades. To think we can simplistically point to a group as general as "women" and pick out one thing to blame for this is beyond nonsense. It would be dangerously idiotic for us to do so.

Even if liberation from gender roles could be shown to be linked to this increase - which as you observe it really has not been on this thread by anyone - then to think it is to blame for anything but a fraction of the observed increase would be fantastical nonsense. In fact we would have to break down even that assumption because for every X people it caused an increase in - there would be Y people it saved. The question is whether X>Y or Y>X.

There's a lot in that post.

The male role models is an interesting one. In my case I had loads of male role modes in my life. By that I mean men who took an interest in me and would spend time doing things with me. You learn from older peers particularly when you identify with them. I see it in my nephew too. He's dead keen to impress me as I'm a bigger boy.

I've had my dad, uncles, rugby coaches, teachers and other school staff, my dad's mates who I spent time with occasionally. You learn different things from different blokes. Some bloke's are brash and overtly confident, others have a subtle confidence, some are more compassionate than others, some more aggressive, some more supportive, nurturing etc. And you learn how those things can work by simply being around people as they behave the way they behave.

Most of the traits aren't just masculine or feminine though. I'd say gender roles are more about doing the things you do with confidence and you learn those things from seeing other men do them.

The notion that wearing dresses is an important part of gender roles is baffling to me.

I also don't think gender to es us the solution to suicide. I think (well the research keeps finding) some blokes feel they ought not seek help because a masculine role is to be self sufficient, stoical etc. So gender roles definitely play a part, but I don't want to pretend it's the cure to suicide b

^ I think I agree with most of that. I just think that what we identify as "male roles" and "male role models" - or their female equivalents - are just people who were role models who happened to be male. When in fact their maleness often - maybe always - has literally nothing to do with other than how we retrospectivly classify it.

In other words - they were not "male role models" they were "Role models who happened to be male". Had they been female - we would just think of them as a role model. Had they been female _and_ you were a girl - then "female role model".

I have learnt so much as a child and as an adult from the males in my life. And from the females in my life. I think of them all as merely role models. I do not think they were modelling being male or female however. They were modelling being good people - or good traits for good people - and they themselves happened to incidently but irrelevantly be male or female while they were doing it.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

^ I think I agree with most of that. I just think that what we identify as "male roles" and "male role models" - or their female equivalents - are just people who were role models who happened to be male. When in fact their maleness often - maybe always - has literally nothing to do with other than how we retrospectivly classify it.

In other words - they were not "male role models" they were "Role models who happened to be male". Had they been female - we would just think of them as a role model. Had they been female _and_ you were a girl - then "female role model".

I have learnt so much as a child and as an adult from the males in my life. And from the females in my life. I think of them all as merely role models. I do not think they were modelling being male or female however. They were modelling being good people - or good traits for good people - and they themselves happened to incidently but irrelevantly be male or female while they were doing it.

Yeah fair one. They are all just role models but I think I identified more with the blokes. Driving around in my uncles bread can for a day in the summer or my dad's mate who took me to a rugby match in Dublin with the other men folk. Blokes treating you like a man and expecting you to behave like a man, is good training.

With that said, the role models could be azzholes and teach that behaviour by simple modelling it too. I found the male role models I had thought me to be comfortable in my own skin as a man and around men. I feel the female role models thought me to be comfortable around women but that might be more about how I remember it that the actual impact it had on me.

Hehehe there is that phrase "like a man" again which I was commenting on from threads like Gay Parenting. I have genuinely tried to get people to tell me what that even means. But on thread after thread no one ever has. At best all they do is tell me a list of traits which are equally desirable in any person of any gender.

I think the best role models in my life were the people who knew when to treat me _like an adult_, and expecting me to behave _like an adult_. Again my gender - or the person role modeling adulthood and being a good person - seems to have been at best incidental.

But I think your last sentence is important - I think a lot of what we think of as "role model" and "<gender> role model" is very often retrospective classification. We just think of the people of our own gender as having been a model for our gender - and the people not of our gender as being just a model.

I simply feel that that classification might be a lot more tenuous and vacuous than we suspect. For me to write the sentence "like a man" I would have to know what that even means. And I genuinely don't. And when I talk to others - it seems when you task them on it they don't either.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hehehe there is that phrase "like a man" again which I was commenting on from threads like Gay Parenting. I have genuinely tried to get people to tell me what that even means. But on thread after thread no one ever has. At best all they do is tell me a list of traits which are equally desirable in any person of any gender.

I think the best role models in my life were the people who knew when to treat me _like an adult_, and expecting me to behave _like an adult_. Again my gender - or the person role modeling adulthood and being a good person - seems to have been at best incidental.

But I think your last sentence is important - I think a lot of what we think of as "role model" and "<gender> role model" is very often retrospective classification. We just think of the people of our own gender as having been a model for our gender - and the people not of our gender as being just a model.

I simply feel that that classification might be a lot more tenuous and vacuous than we suspect. For me to write the sentence "like a man" I would have to know what that even means. And I genuinely don't. And when I talk to others - it seems when you task them on it they don't either.

Like as man means as an adult male. I was an adolescent man at the time so it was a case of "acting up", to use a work phrase.

I wasn't with a responsible adult as such so I had to be responsible for my own safety throughout the day. But much more than that, I had to be responsible for interacting with the other men, keeping up with the chat and the craic they were having.

That was a day that always stands out in my mind as formative. The lads on tour for a day. It was fairly harmless fun, food and drink and having the craic. But they treated me as a adult man. Not a child and not a woman. So yeah, as a man.

I also had a great role model in the woman who minded me from the time I was a child. She treated me as part of the family and their family was very different to my own. They were religious and very traditional. I mentioned her long with my mother in my wedding speech as I think she was a great influence on me not just in and of herself but also as a contrast with my own family do I got two views of how to view things.

I often catch myself doing things that I know came from this woman's influence on me but I probably wouldn't have said she influenced me "as a man". But she obviously did.

So there might be more for me to think about in terms of my role mods.

Sure but again the only word there important to me in "adult male" is "adult". I had people who modelled how to be a good adult. That is it. I genuinely do not know what specifically an "adult male" should act like or be like. To me it is an empty phrase.

So when I see a phrase like "act like a man" or "act like a woman" - I struggle to know what that specifically means that "act like an adult" does not already include. Where is the specific distinctions?

Perhaps if I did understand that - I would understand better what gender roles we should be liberating anyone - men or women - specifically from. But right now it seems vague to me.

So when someone like Jack makes a very explicit claim - backed up by bugger all - that liberation from female gender roles has caused an increase in suicide or depression or similar - it is hard to even know what to start parsing nonsense like that.

Which role(s) specifically? How was the liberation performed and how does it manifest? And what actual evidence outside opinion magazines is there that it influenced suicide statistics?

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure but again the only word there important to me in "adult male" is "adult". I had people who modelled how to be a good adult. That is it. I genuinely do not know what specifically an "adult male" should act like or be like. To me it is an empty phrase.

So when I see a phrase like "act like a man" or "act like a woman" - I struggle to know what that specifically means that "act like an adult" does not already include. Where is the specific distinctions?

Perhaps if I did understand that - I would understand better what gender roles we should be liberating anyone - men or women - specifically from. But right now it seems vague to me.

So when someone like Jack makes a very explicit claim - backed up by bugger all - that liberation from female gender roles has caused an increase in suicide or depression or similar - it is hard to even know what to start parsing nonsense like that.

Which role(s) specifically? How was the liberation performed and how does it manifest? And what actual evidence outside opinion magazines is there that it influenced suicide statistics?

We'll in that instance we were all men. I was asked to go on that specifically because I was a young man and I played rugby. It was the sense of comradery and it was nearly conspirators to have the lads together.

Maybe it was just a sense of being treated like an adult but the fa t that we were all men was a factor in the day for me.

I've a few trips away booked over the next 6 months. 2 are in mixed gender groups and one is just the lads going to Silverstone. I'm looking forward to them all but the one with just the lads is important to me in a slightly different way.

I think the Important thing to me would be to teach children the fundamentals of good behaviour and that their gender is secondary to behaving well and with confidence. If you behave well and with confidence, you'll be grand as either a man or woman.

If you teach a bloke to help their family and friends who need help (particularly if they ask for help) then I think it flows that they too can ask for help if needed. If you teach the opposite, then the opposite will follow.

You can teach perseverance and self reliance, give them the time and encouragement and reward for figuring things out on their own, but not reach that asking for help is a failure "as a man" (or woman). Instead show that you offer help when a friend asks for it (therefore you can expect help if you ask for it). That would be a liberation from a gender role which the research shows causes men to not seek help.

Nothing to go with wanting men to wear dresses or any of that nonsense.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the Important thing to me would be to teach children the fundamentals of good behaviour and that their gender is secondary to behaving well and with confidence. If you behave well and with confidence, you'll be grand as either a man or woman.

That is almost exactly what I would say too. The only thing I think I would edit in fact is to add "and humility" after "with confidence". Otherwise it seems perfect.

Yeah one reason I am invested in the topic is my children and how I parent them. So far I have treated them exactly the same - at age 5 and 9 - regardless of one being a girl and the other a boy.

Ok I have done different things with the girl than the boy based on her being older - that I fully intend to do with him later. But that is a difference of age not gender.

I have invested a lot of thought - almost obsession - into whether I should be or could be treating them different now or in the future based on their gender. And I have not found a single "yes" answer to this yet. Even when I think of adolescence.

My daughter can wire a plug - do some minor maintenance on a car and change a tyre if the tools augment her lack of strength as a child - load fire and care for a rifle - hook up and bait a fishing line - skin a dead hunted rabbit - bake fairy cakes and other cooking - clean and iron - fight jujitsu - meditate - paint and color - science stuff - swim - and care for dolls - and style hair and make up.

Regardless of which gender you might assign any of those activities to - I can name many people of that gender who can not do them. She can already do stuff many men and women can not. I have done / will do all the same stuff with my 5 year old son - our latest new born baby - and our future planned 4th and last child.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you teach a bloke to help their family and friends who need help (particularly if they ask for help) then I think it flows that they too can ask for help if needed.

Agreed - but again I would simply write the exact same sentence without any gender mentioned at all But by now you probably already knewI was gonna reply and say that

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nothing to go with wanting men to wear dresses or any of that nonsense.

True - but it is interesting with my son and daughter that I was showing them Eddie Izzard recently. I was telling them how he made himself trilingual and ran an insane number of marathons in a month. How he is now studing EU history with the view to becoming an MEP someday. I was showing him to be a great role model - how hard work and perseverance and discipline can go a long way.

All the pictures I showed of him - and one video - was him in dresses. Neither of my children seemed to care, notice, or comment on this. It simply did not seem to register. They were entirely clothing and gender blind in that moment it would seem. And I think that is kinda cool. Not because I want men to wear dresses - or care if they do or not because I genuinely don't even a little - but because in that moment all they cared about was how a _person_ achieved great things.

Rufeo

People over think this stuff far too much.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not really. I'm going by the evidence of the research. You're going by your love of that Dame Magazine article. Those aren't the same thing.

I'm paraphrasing what the men have said to the researchers. You're presuming to know what the women are thinking em masse.

You’re clearly not. You’re going by research which supports your opinions, that much is as blatantly obvious as the evidence which suggests that men simply have no interest in liberating themselves from their gender roles. If they did, the research would show far more men liberating themselves from their gender roles than there currently are, in the same way if women wanted to be liberated from their gender roles, far more would do so than there currently are.

I’m not presuming to know what women are thinking en masse at all, any more than you’re extrapolating from the research which supports your opinions that men need to be liberated from their gender roles.

I’m not pretending to know what you’re thinking either when I say I get the impression you really don’t care less about what you’re being told by either men or women. I’m basing my opinion on the evidence I have so far which leads me to conclude that you’re more interested in engaging in bad faith than any interest you have in either men’s or women’s welfare. On that basis I see no reason why I should waste any further energy on this discussion.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re clearly not. You’re going by research which supports your opinions, that much is as blatantly obvious as the evidence which suggests that men simply have no interest in liberating themselves from their gender roles. If they did, the research would show far more men liberating themselves from their gender roles than there currently are, in the same way if women wanted to be liberated from their gender roles, far more would do so than there currently are.

I’m not presuming to know what women are thinking en masse at all, any more than you’re extrapolating from the research which supports your opinions that men need to be liberated from their gender roles.

I’m not pretending to know what you’re thinking either when I say I get the impression you really don’t care less about what you’re being told by either men or women. I’m basing my opinion on the evidence I have so far which leads me to conclude that you’re more interested in engaging in bad faith than any interest you have in either men’s or women’s welfare. On that basis I see no reason why I should waste any further energy on this discussion.

Your first sentence in this quote below, is you claiming to know what women are thinking. Based on what, I don’t know. Maybe it’s the Dame Magazine article you keep linking to. Are you a big Dame Magazine reader or did you just look for an opinion piece that supported your point?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And why would they, when the cost of those privileges has women themselves questioning has it been worth it? That’s the thing about seeing other people’s ‘privileges’, you’re seeing all the positives, and ignoring the negatives. On balance, it can easily be demonstrated that the cost of privilege to women simply hasn’t been worth it. Women are paying an incredibly high cost for a small minority of women who only saw all the privileges men have, and none of the cost. The intent of women’s liberation was to free women from social expectations of their gender, but it hasn’t quite gone according to plan,

Be fair though, the actual academic research that asks men why they didn’t seek help for physical or mental health, is very consistently in finding their perception of gender role as a factor. Note I’m not making any grandiose claims, like your favourite Dame Magazine article, that feminism has caused an exponential growth in female suicides.

I think the research which you’re free to ignore, is really very clear on this point. It’s not a controversial topic in the research. But I suppose you and your favourite magazine, Dame, know better than the academics that’s probably why you can tell us with such confidence, what the women are thinking.

I think it’s clear that you’ve no interest in those blokes who this stuff effects. You’ve jade that clear by ignoring what they say when they’re asked through the research.

I’ll probably continue to listen to the blokes and see what they say.

Isn’t it weird that if you want to support anything for men’s rights (apart from whinging about feminism) you’re considered part of the problem. I used to be surprised by the opposition to activism for men’s issues, but now I always just find it disappointing.

Still things improve slowly, if at all. So just keep moving on and keep the conversation going.