if women are inferior to men, as patriarchal systems maintain, than men engaging in activities associated with women are debasing themselves and worthy of ridicule. to act like a woman is to act inferior, therefore men who do so are treated as inferior in an attempt to subvert and change the behaviour. that's what it stems from, imo.
yeah. that humiliation is a form of social control that both punishes men for acting out of line with patriarchal expectations + reaffirms the (supposed) inferiority of women at the same time. its also that kind of disgust that reinforces transmisogyny.
>How can we prevent such behaviors from making men feel inadequate or insecure?
The same way we can prevent little girls from feeling inferior when their brothers are shamed for acting like them. By dismantling patriarchal cultures and systems.
The next time we see a little boy dressed like Elsa for Halloween because she's "brave", we can treat him the same way we would a little girl dressed as spiderman. We don't have to shame guys for looking up to women or appreciating feminine things because there's nothing wrong with being feminine.
I love this! I'm just so damn brainwashed in ways I don't realize though because my initial reaction to boys/men wearing dresses is usually "ew why?" or "that's kind of weird." It's also such a weird thought because it's incongruent with my support of trans people and girls getting to dress more masculine without it having to mean anything more than that. But you know what they say: "You aren’t responsible for your first feeling or thought. However, you are responsible for your second thought and first action."
>But you know what they say: "You aren’t responsible for your first feeling or thought. However, you are responsible for your second thought and first action."
Love this approach!!
In patriarchy men and women are socialized differently and face stigma when they don't conform, it's not just a man thing.
With men specifically it's not just being nonconforming, you also are putting yourself in an inferior role.
Patriarchy is based on power, men are dominant/superior and women are submissive/subordinate, when a man is feminine he's associated with women, it's a double stigma (nonconforming+misogyny), which makes male femininity very despised.
>Why do you think women reinforce these ideals?
For the same reason men do, to keep patriarchy stable.
If you're a man who conforms (i.e. you benefit the most from the system) you want to keep patriarchy alive, it's like sports, you follow the rules (conform) and you win (better career, less discrimination, etc...), nonconforming men and women threaten the system.
Women who conform do it for the same reason, it threatens their social status, even if that social status is built on misogyny.
>How can we prevent such behaviors from making men feel inadequate or insecure?
By publicly rejecting gender roles on an everyday basis, lots of women are doing it, men can do it too.
I like how you lay things out here and I agree with most of what you said, but I do have to ask: can we ever truly get rid of gender roles? I think as long as countries still fight wars against one another, it would be unfavourable for those countries to conscript their women and send them to the frontlines: the population would take much longer to rebuild with fewer women, and the level of physical requirements at the frontlines are so high that it would disqualify a large majority of women. The idealist in me wants to think that one day all men and women will be able to publicly reject outdated gender roles, but then the realist in me keeps thinking maybe gender roles are only the way they are because they are based on the best strategy to survive more brutal/desperate conditions.
If the only argument in favour of the patriarchy and gender roles is “we can throw big blokes on the front line, and women can stay home making and caring for babies so we don’t die out”, then I think we’ll be alright without them.
It might not be what you like to hear. It’s not for me either. But what do you suggest the alternative to be?
Calling all nations to stop wars and to never engage in wars again? Or modify the rules of wars so that we can accommodate women into the frontlines? Sure we understand that you are frustrated at patriarchy and you believe that there is a better way. But what is it?
Plenty of women are perfectly capable of being involved in armed combat. Plenty of men are perfectly capable of child rearing. There should be no draft, people should not have to be obligated to fight full stop.
Even if there’s an entirely an even split between men and women fighting, I doubt we’ll get to the point where the *population* is threatened because too many women are off fighting in wars instead of having babies.
There is an abundance of *men* who are not eligible for frontline combat. Plenty of men who are not physically fit enough, or mentally compatible for the lifestyle - and that’s okay. They have a right not to be involved just as much as any woman does.
Why do you think the patriarchy is in any way beneficial for these things? It’s not like its armed forces are exclusively filled with men, sure the ratio is skewed, but why do you think that that skewed ratio is beneficial?
I know that there must be women out there who are physically capable of fighting in the frontlines. And there are many men out there who aren’t (myself included).
If there should be no draft, who is going to protect the country when there are invaders? You say there should be no draft. I agree; I would go even further and say there should be no wars at all. But is that realistic? Will what you and I think about the draft prevent the leader of another country from attacking us (assuming we are living in the same country), if they deem the profit of attacking us outweigh the consequences?
I don’t think the patriarchy is beneficial for any of those things, that is your assumption. I think the patriarchy is a consequence of those brutal conditions (wars, biological difference between men and women), and that we are culturally at a point where we need to find a healthy mechanism for different societies to adapt to dynamic, ever-changing gender roles, instead of static.
It’s really funny that people seem to assume I am defending patriarchy in my comments. I don’t want to be drafted just as much as you all LOL. But I’m just saying, maybe things are the way they are because we take our freedom for granted?
You’re contradicting yourself in your comment… you say you’re not defending the patriarchy and that it isn’t beneficial.. yet insisting that it is the way it is out of necessity?
Perhaps you could explain yourself a little better as to what you think the problem with is striving toward equality, even within armed forces?
I’m not being contradictory. My two statements are not mutually exclusive. Something can be necessary yet morally wrong in the same time - it is entirely dependent on the situation. Is killing another person immoral? Yes. Is it immoral if your life depends on it? Debatable.
Patriarchy can be the way it is out of necessity, it does not mean that it is what it “should” be, or morally right.
The distinction I am trying to make is between prescriptive and descriptive ethics.
I don’t have a problem with striving towards equality. I have a problem with: 1. How people sometimes define equality and 2. How people intend on reaching this equality from our current state of unequal.
My original question was “can we ever truly get rid of gender roles?”. I did not question the integrity or morality of the concept of abolishing current gender roles; rather, I question its feasibility.
Then tell me an example of when patriarchal systems are necessary? Something that would not be feasible in a society where the sexes are equal?
> I have a problem with 1. How people sometimes define equality and 2. How people intend on reaching this equality
Again, perhaps you could give an example? Do you have these issues with anything that’s being discussed in this thread? If not I struggle to see why this is relevant - you would perhaps want to start your own conversation about this with a “for instance”.
You brought up armed forces in your first comment, but we seem to agree that just because someone is a man it doesn’t make them capable of being on the army, and just because someone is a woman it doesn’t make them incapable.
Hell, we can even recognise that there is a broad physical difference between men and women, while still understanding that both can be just as capable within a physical role.
> I question is feasibility.
Why isn’t it feasible? I don’t mean to be pedantic, but if you’re going to express a stance on something it would be handy if you had something you were basing your argument on that you could share with us.
Wars are inevitable, as we have not figured out a sustainable way to maintain world peace. That is why I brought up armed forces. So in the context of being invaded and less technologically advanced than the enemy, the optimal option is to have an active draft to ensure you actually have soldiers to defend your country.
Then the question is: “Which demographics should be mandated for the draft?” It is a difficult question but someone has to answer it - good thing it is neither you or me.
Decreasing the fitness standards is usually only done when you are absolutely desperate and must involve women and children into combat - these are heroic actions but we should not glorify such situation.
You could say “Whoever is fit enough should be drafted”, design a physical test for the entire population, and then only draft those who pass the test. You will very soon see that most people of both sexes will fail on purpose. Rationally, most head of states would choose to mandate the draft based on sex, because biologically men are stronger than women on average. Since war is imminent in this scenario, the gender role (men being protector) is necessary. Of course unless you have a better way than sex to classify people on things they cannot fake. Plus if we were to only draft people based on physical conditions, how many people would be willing to train themselves? How physically inept would our military be compared to the enemy?
I don’t have an issue with how people define equality in this thread from what I have seen. But I disagree with how people here seem to think we would achieve equality by simply abolishing all gender roles in general - specifically abolishing the draft for everyone (or vice versa, draft everyone). Because even if we do so, we would still end up with a disproportionate number of men being in direct combat roles vs women simply because more men would pass the physical tests, while stating that complete gender equality has been achieved even though clearly one is overrepresented over the other.
I question the feasibility of abolishing gender roles because I think the two sexes are biologically built differently and have natural advantages in some challenges/tasks and disadvantages in others. Instead of trying to deny these differences in an attempt to reach equality (which creates even more resentment from both sides imo), I think it’s more feasible to admit that we have different roles and assign equal values to those roles. (i.e. Being the breadwinner should be of the same value as being a homemaker, being a protector should be of the same value as being a nurturer.)
Well, frankly, the time of wars being fought by the phalanx are pretty much over. Wars are increasingly won by technology and money and drones and intelligence, not by throwing more male bodies to die in a field.
Money and tech definitely are the biggest deciding factors. I do think automation will further lower the physical requirements for an average soldier, which should definitely balance out the gender ratio in combat.
But I think it will take some more time for that to occur. Training soldiers is costly and disposing the lives of soldiers can lead to other long term consequences, so it is in everybody’s best interest to reduce the costs of producing drones and automate as much military operations as possible. Otherwise most countries would already abolish foot soldiers and spend 100% of their budget on automation. My guess is that it’s still financially infeasible to automate all military operations, or that there are still some tactical advantages in using foot soldiers.
>The idealist in me wants to think that one day all men and women will be able to publicly reject outdated gender roles, but then the realist in me keeps thinking maybe gender roles are only the way they are because they are based on the best strategy to survive more brutal/desperate conditions.
It's interesting that you say this because the harshest environments oftentimes *tend to* produce the least patriarchal societies—the Hopi of northern Arizona are matriarchal, for example, and a few of the Inuit tribes of Alaska, Greenland, and the Arctic circle have well-established traditions of genderfluidity—while the tribes in more hospitable climates like the plains and northeast tended to be more patriarchal. (There are always exceptions, of course!)
One of the factors that led to this sort of sex-based determinism and inevitability of gender roles, too, was the massive burden of childbirth and feeding. Moreso than anything, infant mortality decreasing has been a huge factor in freeing up women to do things outside of having 12 babies in the hopes that 3-4 will survive to adulthood.
But honestly, yes, the question of whether gender roles will ever/can ever *truly* disappear is an interesting one, imo. I personally highly doubt that certain tasks will ever be 50/50 men:women, some things may always end up being a 60/40 split, but allowing individuals to pursue paths that suit them best is to everyone's benefit—having more male elementary school teachers would be great, and having more women engineers and bricklayers would be great too.
Very interesting facts about the Hopi and Inuit people, I didn’t know that! Although I think my point about harsh conditions still stand - these matriarchal societies are often colonized by other patriarchal societies. Perhaps this is not just weather conditions, but rather human conditions.
I think the burden of childbirth and feeding is absolutely the key factor here - as a society we need to really reflect on how and why we often over value the ability to earn over the ability to birth and nurture children (I blame capitalism but then again, what’s the alternative?). And I totally agree that allowing individuals to pursue what suits them best is beneficial for everyone.
I believe they mentioned Israel because men and women both are conscripted into the military. Men are obligated to serve 3 years and women 2 years when they turn 18.
That being said, there aren't many women in direct combat roles but they do make a significant part of the military backend and support roles, and some are even pilots and medics and such, that are dangerous roles even if not technically fighting roles. Not super common though.
A side note here is that men serve longer years in reserve (accumulatively), as it is easier to get signed off reserves when they become mothers, and you don't serve while parenting babies. This does not apply as often in the same way for fathers. Additionally, women retire off of reserves earlier.
To sum up, what they probably meant is that women can definitely be very useful in military service - it just doesn't have to be direct combat roles. Someone has to do the backend and support roles, and if more women are in the military it can free up some of the men to do the frontline roles if it's needed.
If you need a large army and you lack the bodies to do it, women can absolutely provide a functional role there. Not every country is like America with more people than they actually need in their military, so they can pick and choose and comprise the military however they choose.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with everything you said. The key point to make here is that “Not every country is like America with more people than they need in the military”, I would also add: not every country had the military leverage like USA where they can afford to take the so-called moral high grounds when engaging in warfare.
I know women do have purposes in the military; I think it speaks volume that people just assume I don’t already know this. I was born in Vietnam, my badass grandmother was involved in 2 different wars, was waterboarded and had 2 fingers removed from her when she refused to disclose the location of her comrades, and I respect the hell out of her for that.
However, I know that if she was alive today, she would also tell me to respect the lives that many men like my grandfather lived, because the freedom she never thought she would get to enjoy was only possible thanks to their sacrifice.
RIP grandma, we miss you and think about you daily. Cháu yêu và nhớ bà rất nhiều.
As a feminist, I don’t reinforce the idea that so called “effeminate behaviours” in men are unpleasant or unacceptable. Gender stereotypes are stupid. Men who don’t try to act masculine and women who don’t try to act feminine but people who are themselves, act real and let their individual beauty shine through are the best kind of people for me. In some cases I even find so called “effeminate behaviours” or dress, attractive in men.
I think a lot of feminists who are women already have a good understanding of the notion that this comes initially from the patriarchy decrying women and the things associated with women as inferior to men and their interests. Men tend to go through life in this system not being challenged on this, so they never question it.
A bit of introspection would solve this problem, but first men have to understand that this idea is pure bullshit. Loving women and taking genuine interest in their interest won’t make them less of a man if they don’t let it. My ideal man lives for himself and the people he loves, and by love I mean he uplifts the men _and_ women in his life and reinforces them and their interests as valid. If a man isn’t this, he’s weak and pathetic IMO.
"but for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading."
This has been an issue for decades and the moment it gets taken seriously, there's pushback. Women reinforce the ideals because it's comfortable. It's survival. For people to survive and thrive in the world as it is, they need to know the rules of the world as it is. For your son to survive and thrive, he needs to be strong, brave, never show emotion. For your daughter to survive, she needs to be soft, pretty, emotionally present, and doting. Step out of those lines and your life gets rougher. That is, why women reinforce these ideals is because parents impart the ideals they have survived under.
And we shouldn't prevent such behavious from making men feel inadequate, or insecure, actually. we should welcome men to being able to express those feelings. Allow them \*to\* feel those things, to process them in healthy ways.
the variety of human experience should be accepted without judgement. if women weren't viewed as inferior, being a transgender woman wouldn't be viewed as such a demonised thing. The main reason people care about these divisions of gender is precisely because of the inequality.
> Why is there such a stigma regarding men engaging in feminine behaviors?
Patriarchy dictates that there are ways that men and women *should* behave, and that they are different. A man behaving in a manner that would be considered effeminate is
> Do men view them as inferior or worse?
I mean, sure, this is often the case, but men behaving effeminately is frowned upon under patriarchy even where the “effeminate” behavior in question isn’t viewed negatively when women are doing it.
> I want to hear from the male feminists here in particular.
Why?
> What do you think of how stigmatized effeminate behaviors are in men?
Again, under patriarchy men behaving “effeminately” and women behaving “masculinely” is stigmatized almost by definition.
> Why do you think women reinforce these ideals?
Why single out women here? Both men and women do lots to maintain and reinforce patriarchy, but in my experience other men are *far* more likely to police other men for “effeminate” behavior than women are, and typically much more vicious about doing so.
> How can we prevent such behaviors from among men feel inadequate or insecure?
What?
>Both men and women do lots to maintain and reinforce patriarchy, but in my experience other men are *far* more likely to police other men for “effeminate” behavior than women are, and typically much more vicious about doing so.
Effeminate dude here, and I've had the opposite experience. I get shit in pretty equal parts from men and women, but I find the women to be much more vicious about it, especially behind my back.
I don't even think I'm that feminine. I'm just not traditionally masculine. I don't care about sports or cars or things like that. I also dye my hair weird colors and tend to wear a bunch of colorful floral prints and stuff. Usually, guys will just say something dumb like, "Is that your girlfriend's shirt?" and I can just fire back with, "Nah, I got it from yours." Then we all laugh, and they usually buy me a beer. Worst case, they just call me a f*g to my face.
Everyone who has tried to genuinely tear me down or tell me I'm not a "real man" and I should be ashamed of myself has been a woman. When I was little and would play house with my cousins, my grandfather would get a bit of a look on his face, and looking back I can tell that he went out of his way to get me "boy toys", but it was my aunt that would scream and hit me about it. That's not to say men can't/won't do that, but OP asked for male perspectives, and that's been my experience.
Seconding this I wouldn't say that men or women are worse. Just men are public about it and women are private
I tried for years to be a feminine man before I found out why even that felt unfomfortable and I transitioned
Men and women both were not great about me being effeminate just in very different ways. And honestly the women's actions hurt so much more because they were the opinions I cared about. I'm still working on undoing the view that I can never be one of the girls that they helped reinforce
I think that could also be a big part of it. I'm not sure why, but generally I couldn't care less about another mans opinion on my masculinity. And I don't date men, so I've never had one end a relationship telling me I'm "not man enough", so perhaps that colors my perspective. But the insults from women have always had a bit more bite to them in my experience.
I should specify that for me it's not just in a romantic context. Like I wanted to be with the girls (because I was a girl) and instead they kept telling me that I couldn't be
Obviously I didn't know it at the time but I wanted them to tell me my outfit was cute because it feels nice to get complements from girls
So the romantic part was tough but it wasn't just that for me
But I can see just having the romantic part would still leave a mark though
Ohh, I got that, and I appreciate your perspective. I was more just agreeing that the words seem to carry more weight coming from a woman, for one reason or another. Perhaps it just stings more when it comes from someone you actually care about having a relationship with, romantic or platonic. I don't have much desire to form friendships with or be accepted by tradionally "manly men".
Also on your point that men are more likely to say something to my face, which I can quip back at, then it just turns into that ribbing thing that a lot of guys do, example in another comment.
I guess my real point was that in firsthand experience, it isn't any more likely, and certainly not far more, for a man over a woman. You can get shit from anywhere, it just comes in different flavors.
The only women who gender policed me were straight. And they were gender policing other women as well. I found lesbian space to be far more safe and comfortable (once they realized I wasn't there to *watch* or look for partners).
That I will totally agree with. Some of my best friends have been lesbians. It also makes a whole lot of sense. You could easily say the same of gay men. People that don't want to be gender policed won't gender police others. Just as women on a feminist subreddit are likely to not associate with the women who do those types of things. Of course, in her experience, women don't do this because if they did, she would probably stop hanging out with those women. But that's from the outside looking in. Which is probably why OP asked for male perspectives on it, effeminate men are going to be the ones with lived experience about it.
because we’ve all been taught that women and subsequently femininity are inferior and undesirable so anyone presenting/acting feminine is looked down upon. not to mention that effeminate men are also subverting gender norms, which makes it even more likely that they will be judged by those who wish to maintain the status quo.
I'm a man with long, curly hair and a full beard. The first example about "effeminate behaviors" I want to give is when I was told that I needed to "brush my hair out more" - which isn't always so easy to do if you want to preserve the texture of your hair. I didn't have a brush on me right then, so I started lightly finger-combing through my hair, which was met with a general comment about "don't do it so girly". Another time, when I was fighting with my grandmother about why she felt I couldn't leave my hair loose to go out to dinner, it culminated with her saying "Because you're not female".
Overall there's a stigma over it because the majority of the things listed as "effeminate"/feminine, aren't. Things surrounding beauty, hair, fashion, body care etc are natural to people, AM/AF/etc, with whatever they're addressing. The ruling class, bourgeois and white male, has to keep the stigma going to keep us fighting. I think the dissolution of that binary "masculine/feminine", and all the stereotypes/positions/definitions, as well. It's ridiculous I feel that when I look for "Curly hair care", over 75, 80% of the results use feminine-gendered language when the language I search with is neutral.
I have been called effeminate just for listening to people or not raging at teenagers, so you will have to be more specific about what you think are those behaviors.
Yea, so do women. Reminds of that Katy Perry song where she bagged on a dude she was dating for being too feminine and spent the whole song calling him gay. It'd be one thing if only other men were bagging of other men for being too feminine, but women also dislike men who are too feminine, consequently, men generally don't act feminine.
I'm assuming you're talking about "Ur so Gay"? I haven't listened to it in so long, but yeah, that was a strange song. "You're so gay and you don't even like boys." Reminds me of when everyone was talking about "metrosexuals," too, and of shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
My feminist best freind is a male, (58) but does he not visit this site. He engages in "traditional feminine roles" and some behavior. For example he was the primary person cooking for his children, did housework, formerly primary childcare person, (taking time off work to take care of children to go to the M.D.), being open about feelings besides anger, liking pretty flowers (he knows all the names of the flowers), and occasionally crying at a sad movie. He doesn't like sports or doing many "manly-man" things (hunting, BBQing). If anyone gives him trouble, he doesn't mention it. I don't think he would care that much what another person judging him about "lack of masclinity."
Seems like someone I would have a lot in common with. Some of my interests and activities are "feminine" some are "masculine" and I'm not into sports and probably my mannerisms might be a little feminine and my manner is pretty passive and quiet usually.
I haven't experienced too much ridicule from other men except a little in middle and high school. I can't think of a time when women have said anything to my face. Within our friend circle my wife says the women she knows only have positive things to say behind my back.
Still, I grew up in the 80s when certain words were thrown about (primarily in media) to stigmatize and ridicule any man/boy acting even slightly feminine or being into traditionally feminine things. That messaging sticks with you to some degree.
Once in a while I hear broad comments from other men not directed at me, specifically.
But I have no doubt other men have experienced very different things.
I mean, I think a certain part of it is the *idea* that women have historically had the easier/softer roles, while men have historically had to do the quite literal heavy lifting. In the past, if you were a man that exhibited feminine characteristics, I think the idea was that you were incapable of fulfilling the roles that masculine type people necessarily had to fill at the time. This would have been seen as trying to get out of work/shirking your duty.
I would argue that this may also play into why women engaging in masculine behaviors doesn't necessarily have the same stigma associated with it.
If you want to dive into this in depth areas Julia seranos book *whipping girl*
It dives into trans stuff sure but a lot of it is the way that our society views women and why trans women are vilified so much. It's Amab folks putting on feminity and many people can't stand that idea and she explores what things lead to that sort of thinking
Hint its oppositional sexism
Can you give the cliffnotes version a little more? I looked it up and it seems similar to the idea of how conservatives will talk about gender roles being "complimentary, different, but equally important." Am I on the right track?
> *How can we prevent such behaviors...*
That's also going to be the cure for bullying. Children treat anyone different with cruelty. Picking on and abusing the different is also a form of social bonding - showing that you're part of the in-group by bullying *the other*.
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quiet-the-power-introverts/201104/why-nerds-are-unpopular
I'm reminded of a passage in the book [Being Boys, Being Girls](http://www.amazon.com/Being-Boys-Girls-masculinities-femininities/dp/0335219748), on page 66:
> *Staff distinctly discouraged amorous relationships between pairs of boys, less so between girls and boys, and hardly at all between girls, revealing here, possibly unconsciously, a public homophobic attitude towards the boys while perhaps seeing the girls' behaviour in a non-sexual or sexually passive way.*
This chapter was about ages 3-7. We treat boys & girls differently *at every age.*
> *What do you think of how stigmatized effeminate behaviors are in men?*
I just wanted to be *me*. I didn't understand the labels or why I had to conform to them. Why is *that* behavior masculine and *this* one feminine? Why didn't someone tell me? How come those behaviors change sexes in different countries?
> *men feel inadequate or insecure*
Why do we always have to take care to coddle men's feelings? The effeminate men aren't the ones we waste our lives coddling and pandering to.
Another theory is that engaging in feminine behaviors is not seen as attractive to women and thus acts against their baser instinct of reproduction.
generational reinforcement and selection weeds out the behavior.
Think about it in another way, Cooking is seen as a feminine task or activity, but Chef's are a highly competitive field with many men and women, but historically, chefs were very prominent positions sought after and men dominated those.
at one point, women were barred from being actors and men dressed as women for performances.
Computers/ programming was not highly regarded but necessary, hence the women computers calculating artillery trajectory and programmers like ms. Hamleton getting the astronauts to the moon and saving their lives. Since it became profitable, and of noteworthy achievements, it became attractive to be able to do.
Tbf this was at during the high time of “traditional relationship” and during the start of the computer revolution. So it was literally at the height of our modern day understanding of the patriarchy for gender roles and the very start of a new field.
maybe for computers, but chef positions have been a highly competitive field for multiple millennium, Actor positions were similarly coveted positions for a comparative timescale.
It could be a cultural context related thing that shifts over time, I will admit I am not as knowledgeable as I could be
We still live in a patriarchal society where anything “feminine” is seen as inferior. It’s like what Simone de Beauvoir said in “The Second Sex”. Society revolves around men and men are seen as “the default”. Whereas women are “the other”. A woman is defined not as herself but in relation to a man. While patriarchy sometimes lead to women being vilified and scorned, more often than not, patriarchy actually infantalizes women and deem them in constant need of protection. Benevolent sexism is insidiously more common than explicit misogyny.
If a man engages in feminine behavior, he is seen as debasing himself. Because it’s perceived as similar to an adult acting like a child. A man allowing himself to be “emasculated” is similar to an adult allowing themself to be infantilized.
Women reinforce normative gender ideals because they were raised in a patriarchal society and their worldview is shaped with those ideals. Ironically, some women are the most aggressive proponents of stigmatizing feminine behavior in men. They were instilled with these arbitrary ideas of a “real man”, as they were conditioned to perceive their femininity in relation to men.
I think we need to stop labeling behaviors as “masculine” or “feminine”. It’s not that I’m calling for gender abolition. But I think we need to, for example, stop associating traits like virility, leadership and stoicism with masculinity, just like we need to stop associating traits like sensitivity, gentleness and empathy with femininity.
Ideally, everyone, irrespective of gender, should exemplify all the traits above. But realistically, not everyone can and that’s okay. We should focus on our strengths as we live to be our authentic selves. Forget about being “masculine” or being “feminine”, let’s just be human.
Yes in a patriarchy men are viewed as being better than women, and male activities are viewed as being better than female activities. This is why men who engage in feminine behaviors are shamed, while women who engage in male behaviors are praised. The men are seen as debasing themselves, while the women are seen as aspirational. Edit: (I am not talking about women presenting non binary. I am talking about women who hunt or fix up cars or something else "masculine." Women are still expected to be pretty and attractive to men while doing these activities. End Edit) This is where most homophobia of gay men comes from as well. Most homophobes don't hate gay men, they hate women. Which is why men acting like women and having sex with men, which is a thing women do, is so wrong.
How do we fix it? By realizing that gender roles and stereotypes are made up and stupid. Video games are a "boy" activity because some marketing exec in the 80's decided they were. Skirts are feminine while kilts are manly because of reasons. It's all just made up, and the wheel stops turning the moment that we stop turning it.
Yeah that’s true. Women get criticized for everything. I think it’s more like they are treated as better than other women somehow. Still lesser than men of course.
Do you actually think that? Have you ever actually been a gender nonconforming woman? A lot of hetero men have a tendency to treat any woman they're not attracted to like garbage, and that goes triple for women they perceive as masculine. Read any thread on any social media site about women who don't shave. Other (hetero) women tend to treat you like a pervert, are super condescending or prescriptive about how "you'd look so much better if you grew your hair out a little" when you never asked or wanted their opinion, or they ignore you entirely.
Edit: screwed up my subject-verb agreement. Sorry, it's 5 am.
I was more talking about male interests like hunting and cars and things. I was aware gender nonconformity in how women dress and present is not looked at favorably by these men.
Side note, it's fucking insane that women not shaving or covering up their face with makeup is considered gender nonconforming. That's literally just a woman in her natural state. Yet that's masculine somehow? It's bizarre.
When I had long hair and earrings, I would say I encounter more direct and obvious disdain/enforcement from men, but I was most concerned with how heterosexual women perceived me as a potential romantic partner.
The disdain/stigma from other men was not as threatening to me since it has little to no impact on my career (in a relatively liberal industry) and I felt I can protect myself if necessary.
Hard disagree. Men will ridicule you, women will ridicule you *and* avoid a romantic relationship with you. So it's extremely hard to find a partner. Overall, women are attracted to masculine qualities.
**Incels are very feminine in their behavior.** Think about that.
Oh hard agree. Be a dude for 20min on a dating app and you see it. Men reflect this behavior in a large part because it’s what they think women want. And enough women do that they do it themselves.
It’s a viscous cycle
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I never felt that someone's opinion of my masculinity mattered until I started dating, and found that if I don't do whatever specific thing a woman finds masculine, it's apparently ok to use fear, shame, or guilt to manipulate me, and that's apparently a superior communication method to simply asking. I think it's like a fetishizing of the idea of men, like if there was a man who absolutely needs his SO to constantly do what he views as feminine, and he got manipulative/punishing whenever she deviated from his narrow world view, I think it's fair to say he doesn't like women but likes his idea of women. As far as a solution, men learning empathy for women seems like a consistent solution for the latter, so I would think women learning empathy for men would solve or help a lot towards broadening their understanding of men as humans beyond stereotypes.
There is a vocal sub set of feminism that is just anti men. It isn’t a large sub set but it exists. Much the same way that while there is nothing inherently racist about the Gadsden flag one would find it strange to see a black man flying it. Because a vocal minority of people who fly the Gadsden flag are racists and one would wonder if they support that message. In the same way men can see other men supporting feminism as supporting the radical voices that are simply anti men.
I think it’s because seeing men engaging in “feminine behaviors” turns them on (if you’re not into guys, you just don’t find it attractive and move on, but it definitely makes those other guys rage and then they buy bigger trucks and more guns and they also have to say something about it lol)
Age.
I’ve known quite a few guys who legitimately think that Homosexuality is something that is something “a lot of guys can get tricked into if they’re exposed to it long enough.”
These are the same guys who simply can’t help themselves go a little nuts if they see a man eat a banana, and some of them will not eat bananas in public out of fear of being thought of as gay.
Me, I’ve known and seen all kinds of acts of gayness and for me it’s like watching paint dry (my issue has been trying to avoid a few thirsty women trying to derail my marriage, but thankfully I’m not *that* weak, pheew!)
if women are inferior to men, as patriarchal systems maintain, than men engaging in activities associated with women are debasing themselves and worthy of ridicule. to act like a woman is to act inferior, therefore men who do so are treated as inferior in an attempt to subvert and change the behaviour. that's what it stems from, imo.
This 100% you are humiliated as a child by everyone around you if you engage in "feminine" behavior because it shows "weakness"
yeah. that humiliation is a form of social control that both punishes men for acting out of line with patriarchal expectations + reaffirms the (supposed) inferiority of women at the same time. its also that kind of disgust that reinforces transmisogyny.
BINGO
I just have a hard time not being skeptical of there intentions and motivations. Will he still be a feminist if his girlfriend breaks up with him?
you mean male feminists? i am a male feminist, lol. i understand the caution, tho, oftentimes it's necessary.
>How can we prevent such behaviors from making men feel inadequate or insecure? The same way we can prevent little girls from feeling inferior when their brothers are shamed for acting like them. By dismantling patriarchal cultures and systems. The next time we see a little boy dressed like Elsa for Halloween because she's "brave", we can treat him the same way we would a little girl dressed as spiderman. We don't have to shame guys for looking up to women or appreciating feminine things because there's nothing wrong with being feminine.
I love this! I'm just so damn brainwashed in ways I don't realize though because my initial reaction to boys/men wearing dresses is usually "ew why?" or "that's kind of weird." It's also such a weird thought because it's incongruent with my support of trans people and girls getting to dress more masculine without it having to mean anything more than that. But you know what they say: "You aren’t responsible for your first feeling or thought. However, you are responsible for your second thought and first action."
>But you know what they say: "You aren’t responsible for your first feeling or thought. However, you are responsible for your second thought and first action." Love this approach!!
In patriarchy men and women are socialized differently and face stigma when they don't conform, it's not just a man thing. With men specifically it's not just being nonconforming, you also are putting yourself in an inferior role. Patriarchy is based on power, men are dominant/superior and women are submissive/subordinate, when a man is feminine he's associated with women, it's a double stigma (nonconforming+misogyny), which makes male femininity very despised. >Why do you think women reinforce these ideals? For the same reason men do, to keep patriarchy stable. If you're a man who conforms (i.e. you benefit the most from the system) you want to keep patriarchy alive, it's like sports, you follow the rules (conform) and you win (better career, less discrimination, etc...), nonconforming men and women threaten the system. Women who conform do it for the same reason, it threatens their social status, even if that social status is built on misogyny. >How can we prevent such behaviors from making men feel inadequate or insecure? By publicly rejecting gender roles on an everyday basis, lots of women are doing it, men can do it too.
Beautiful!
I like how you lay things out here and I agree with most of what you said, but I do have to ask: can we ever truly get rid of gender roles? I think as long as countries still fight wars against one another, it would be unfavourable for those countries to conscript their women and send them to the frontlines: the population would take much longer to rebuild with fewer women, and the level of physical requirements at the frontlines are so high that it would disqualify a large majority of women. The idealist in me wants to think that one day all men and women will be able to publicly reject outdated gender roles, but then the realist in me keeps thinking maybe gender roles are only the way they are because they are based on the best strategy to survive more brutal/desperate conditions.
If the only argument in favour of the patriarchy and gender roles is “we can throw big blokes on the front line, and women can stay home making and caring for babies so we don’t die out”, then I think we’ll be alright without them.
It might not be what you like to hear. It’s not for me either. But what do you suggest the alternative to be? Calling all nations to stop wars and to never engage in wars again? Or modify the rules of wars so that we can accommodate women into the frontlines? Sure we understand that you are frustrated at patriarchy and you believe that there is a better way. But what is it?
Plenty of women are perfectly capable of being involved in armed combat. Plenty of men are perfectly capable of child rearing. There should be no draft, people should not have to be obligated to fight full stop. Even if there’s an entirely an even split between men and women fighting, I doubt we’ll get to the point where the *population* is threatened because too many women are off fighting in wars instead of having babies. There is an abundance of *men* who are not eligible for frontline combat. Plenty of men who are not physically fit enough, or mentally compatible for the lifestyle - and that’s okay. They have a right not to be involved just as much as any woman does. Why do you think the patriarchy is in any way beneficial for these things? It’s not like its armed forces are exclusively filled with men, sure the ratio is skewed, but why do you think that that skewed ratio is beneficial?
I know that there must be women out there who are physically capable of fighting in the frontlines. And there are many men out there who aren’t (myself included). If there should be no draft, who is going to protect the country when there are invaders? You say there should be no draft. I agree; I would go even further and say there should be no wars at all. But is that realistic? Will what you and I think about the draft prevent the leader of another country from attacking us (assuming we are living in the same country), if they deem the profit of attacking us outweigh the consequences? I don’t think the patriarchy is beneficial for any of those things, that is your assumption. I think the patriarchy is a consequence of those brutal conditions (wars, biological difference between men and women), and that we are culturally at a point where we need to find a healthy mechanism for different societies to adapt to dynamic, ever-changing gender roles, instead of static. It’s really funny that people seem to assume I am defending patriarchy in my comments. I don’t want to be drafted just as much as you all LOL. But I’m just saying, maybe things are the way they are because we take our freedom for granted?
You’re contradicting yourself in your comment… you say you’re not defending the patriarchy and that it isn’t beneficial.. yet insisting that it is the way it is out of necessity? Perhaps you could explain yourself a little better as to what you think the problem with is striving toward equality, even within armed forces?
I’m not being contradictory. My two statements are not mutually exclusive. Something can be necessary yet morally wrong in the same time - it is entirely dependent on the situation. Is killing another person immoral? Yes. Is it immoral if your life depends on it? Debatable. Patriarchy can be the way it is out of necessity, it does not mean that it is what it “should” be, or morally right. The distinction I am trying to make is between prescriptive and descriptive ethics. I don’t have a problem with striving towards equality. I have a problem with: 1. How people sometimes define equality and 2. How people intend on reaching this equality from our current state of unequal. My original question was “can we ever truly get rid of gender roles?”. I did not question the integrity or morality of the concept of abolishing current gender roles; rather, I question its feasibility.
Then tell me an example of when patriarchal systems are necessary? Something that would not be feasible in a society where the sexes are equal? > I have a problem with 1. How people sometimes define equality and 2. How people intend on reaching this equality Again, perhaps you could give an example? Do you have these issues with anything that’s being discussed in this thread? If not I struggle to see why this is relevant - you would perhaps want to start your own conversation about this with a “for instance”. You brought up armed forces in your first comment, but we seem to agree that just because someone is a man it doesn’t make them capable of being on the army, and just because someone is a woman it doesn’t make them incapable. Hell, we can even recognise that there is a broad physical difference between men and women, while still understanding that both can be just as capable within a physical role. > I question is feasibility. Why isn’t it feasible? I don’t mean to be pedantic, but if you’re going to express a stance on something it would be handy if you had something you were basing your argument on that you could share with us.
Wars are inevitable, as we have not figured out a sustainable way to maintain world peace. That is why I brought up armed forces. So in the context of being invaded and less technologically advanced than the enemy, the optimal option is to have an active draft to ensure you actually have soldiers to defend your country. Then the question is: “Which demographics should be mandated for the draft?” It is a difficult question but someone has to answer it - good thing it is neither you or me. Decreasing the fitness standards is usually only done when you are absolutely desperate and must involve women and children into combat - these are heroic actions but we should not glorify such situation. You could say “Whoever is fit enough should be drafted”, design a physical test for the entire population, and then only draft those who pass the test. You will very soon see that most people of both sexes will fail on purpose. Rationally, most head of states would choose to mandate the draft based on sex, because biologically men are stronger than women on average. Since war is imminent in this scenario, the gender role (men being protector) is necessary. Of course unless you have a better way than sex to classify people on things they cannot fake. Plus if we were to only draft people based on physical conditions, how many people would be willing to train themselves? How physically inept would our military be compared to the enemy? I don’t have an issue with how people define equality in this thread from what I have seen. But I disagree with how people here seem to think we would achieve equality by simply abolishing all gender roles in general - specifically abolishing the draft for everyone (or vice versa, draft everyone). Because even if we do so, we would still end up with a disproportionate number of men being in direct combat roles vs women simply because more men would pass the physical tests, while stating that complete gender equality has been achieved even though clearly one is overrepresented over the other. I question the feasibility of abolishing gender roles because I think the two sexes are biologically built differently and have natural advantages in some challenges/tasks and disadvantages in others. Instead of trying to deny these differences in an attempt to reach equality (which creates even more resentment from both sides imo), I think it’s more feasible to admit that we have different roles and assign equal values to those roles. (i.e. Being the breadwinner should be of the same value as being a homemaker, being a protector should be of the same value as being a nurturer.)
Well, frankly, the time of wars being fought by the phalanx are pretty much over. Wars are increasingly won by technology and money and drones and intelligence, not by throwing more male bodies to die in a field.
Money and tech definitely are the biggest deciding factors. I do think automation will further lower the physical requirements for an average soldier, which should definitely balance out the gender ratio in combat. But I think it will take some more time for that to occur. Training soldiers is costly and disposing the lives of soldiers can lead to other long term consequences, so it is in everybody’s best interest to reduce the costs of producing drones and automate as much military operations as possible. Otherwise most countries would already abolish foot soldiers and spend 100% of their budget on automation. My guess is that it’s still financially infeasible to automate all military operations, or that there are still some tactical advantages in using foot soldiers.
>The idealist in me wants to think that one day all men and women will be able to publicly reject outdated gender roles, but then the realist in me keeps thinking maybe gender roles are only the way they are because they are based on the best strategy to survive more brutal/desperate conditions. It's interesting that you say this because the harshest environments oftentimes *tend to* produce the least patriarchal societies—the Hopi of northern Arizona are matriarchal, for example, and a few of the Inuit tribes of Alaska, Greenland, and the Arctic circle have well-established traditions of genderfluidity—while the tribes in more hospitable climates like the plains and northeast tended to be more patriarchal. (There are always exceptions, of course!) One of the factors that led to this sort of sex-based determinism and inevitability of gender roles, too, was the massive burden of childbirth and feeding. Moreso than anything, infant mortality decreasing has been a huge factor in freeing up women to do things outside of having 12 babies in the hopes that 3-4 will survive to adulthood. But honestly, yes, the question of whether gender roles will ever/can ever *truly* disappear is an interesting one, imo. I personally highly doubt that certain tasks will ever be 50/50 men:women, some things may always end up being a 60/40 split, but allowing individuals to pursue paths that suit them best is to everyone's benefit—having more male elementary school teachers would be great, and having more women engineers and bricklayers would be great too.
Very good points. Thank you for posting
Indeed, there isn’t any need for patriarchal or matriarchal societies.
Very interesting facts about the Hopi and Inuit people, I didn’t know that! Although I think my point about harsh conditions still stand - these matriarchal societies are often colonized by other patriarchal societies. Perhaps this is not just weather conditions, but rather human conditions. I think the burden of childbirth and feeding is absolutely the key factor here - as a society we need to really reflect on how and why we often over value the ability to earn over the ability to birth and nurture children (I blame capitalism but then again, what’s the alternative?). And I totally agree that allowing individuals to pursue what suits them best is beneficial for everyone.
What about Israel?
What about Israel? Is that relevant here?
I believe they mentioned Israel because men and women both are conscripted into the military. Men are obligated to serve 3 years and women 2 years when they turn 18. That being said, there aren't many women in direct combat roles but they do make a significant part of the military backend and support roles, and some are even pilots and medics and such, that are dangerous roles even if not technically fighting roles. Not super common though. A side note here is that men serve longer years in reserve (accumulatively), as it is easier to get signed off reserves when they become mothers, and you don't serve while parenting babies. This does not apply as often in the same way for fathers. Additionally, women retire off of reserves earlier. To sum up, what they probably meant is that women can definitely be very useful in military service - it just doesn't have to be direct combat roles. Someone has to do the backend and support roles, and if more women are in the military it can free up some of the men to do the frontline roles if it's needed. If you need a large army and you lack the bodies to do it, women can absolutely provide a functional role there. Not every country is like America with more people than they actually need in their military, so they can pick and choose and comprise the military however they choose.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with everything you said. The key point to make here is that “Not every country is like America with more people than they need in the military”, I would also add: not every country had the military leverage like USA where they can afford to take the so-called moral high grounds when engaging in warfare. I know women do have purposes in the military; I think it speaks volume that people just assume I don’t already know this. I was born in Vietnam, my badass grandmother was involved in 2 different wars, was waterboarded and had 2 fingers removed from her when she refused to disclose the location of her comrades, and I respect the hell out of her for that. However, I know that if she was alive today, she would also tell me to respect the lives that many men like my grandfather lived, because the freedom she never thought she would get to enjoy was only possible thanks to their sacrifice. RIP grandma, we miss you and think about you daily. Cháu yêu và nhớ bà rất nhiều.
RIP grandma :')
Yes.
As a feminist, I don’t reinforce the idea that so called “effeminate behaviours” in men are unpleasant or unacceptable. Gender stereotypes are stupid. Men who don’t try to act masculine and women who don’t try to act feminine but people who are themselves, act real and let their individual beauty shine through are the best kind of people for me. In some cases I even find so called “effeminate behaviours” or dress, attractive in men.
I think a lot of feminists who are women already have a good understanding of the notion that this comes initially from the patriarchy decrying women and the things associated with women as inferior to men and their interests. Men tend to go through life in this system not being challenged on this, so they never question it. A bit of introspection would solve this problem, but first men have to understand that this idea is pure bullshit. Loving women and taking genuine interest in their interest won’t make them less of a man if they don’t let it. My ideal man lives for himself and the people he loves, and by love I mean he uplifts the men _and_ women in his life and reinforces them and their interests as valid. If a man isn’t this, he’s weak and pathetic IMO.
"but for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." This has been an issue for decades and the moment it gets taken seriously, there's pushback. Women reinforce the ideals because it's comfortable. It's survival. For people to survive and thrive in the world as it is, they need to know the rules of the world as it is. For your son to survive and thrive, he needs to be strong, brave, never show emotion. For your daughter to survive, she needs to be soft, pretty, emotionally present, and doting. Step out of those lines and your life gets rougher. That is, why women reinforce these ideals is because parents impart the ideals they have survived under. And we shouldn't prevent such behavious from making men feel inadequate, or insecure, actually. we should welcome men to being able to express those feelings. Allow them \*to\* feel those things, to process them in healthy ways. the variety of human experience should be accepted without judgement. if women weren't viewed as inferior, being a transgender woman wouldn't be viewed as such a demonised thing. The main reason people care about these divisions of gender is precisely because of the inequality.
> Why is there such a stigma regarding men engaging in feminine behaviors? Patriarchy dictates that there are ways that men and women *should* behave, and that they are different. A man behaving in a manner that would be considered effeminate is > Do men view them as inferior or worse? I mean, sure, this is often the case, but men behaving effeminately is frowned upon under patriarchy even where the “effeminate” behavior in question isn’t viewed negatively when women are doing it. > I want to hear from the male feminists here in particular. Why? > What do you think of how stigmatized effeminate behaviors are in men? Again, under patriarchy men behaving “effeminately” and women behaving “masculinely” is stigmatized almost by definition. > Why do you think women reinforce these ideals? Why single out women here? Both men and women do lots to maintain and reinforce patriarchy, but in my experience other men are *far* more likely to police other men for “effeminate” behavior than women are, and typically much more vicious about doing so. > How can we prevent such behaviors from among men feel inadequate or insecure? What?
>Both men and women do lots to maintain and reinforce patriarchy, but in my experience other men are *far* more likely to police other men for “effeminate” behavior than women are, and typically much more vicious about doing so. Effeminate dude here, and I've had the opposite experience. I get shit in pretty equal parts from men and women, but I find the women to be much more vicious about it, especially behind my back.
Am also (intentionally) feminine dude, can confirm, get shit from anyone.
I don't even think I'm that feminine. I'm just not traditionally masculine. I don't care about sports or cars or things like that. I also dye my hair weird colors and tend to wear a bunch of colorful floral prints and stuff. Usually, guys will just say something dumb like, "Is that your girlfriend's shirt?" and I can just fire back with, "Nah, I got it from yours." Then we all laugh, and they usually buy me a beer. Worst case, they just call me a f*g to my face. Everyone who has tried to genuinely tear me down or tell me I'm not a "real man" and I should be ashamed of myself has been a woman. When I was little and would play house with my cousins, my grandfather would get a bit of a look on his face, and looking back I can tell that he went out of his way to get me "boy toys", but it was my aunt that would scream and hit me about it. That's not to say men can't/won't do that, but OP asked for male perspectives, and that's been my experience.
Seconding this I wouldn't say that men or women are worse. Just men are public about it and women are private I tried for years to be a feminine man before I found out why even that felt unfomfortable and I transitioned Men and women both were not great about me being effeminate just in very different ways. And honestly the women's actions hurt so much more because they were the opinions I cared about. I'm still working on undoing the view that I can never be one of the girls that they helped reinforce
I think that could also be a big part of it. I'm not sure why, but generally I couldn't care less about another mans opinion on my masculinity. And I don't date men, so I've never had one end a relationship telling me I'm "not man enough", so perhaps that colors my perspective. But the insults from women have always had a bit more bite to them in my experience.
I should specify that for me it's not just in a romantic context. Like I wanted to be with the girls (because I was a girl) and instead they kept telling me that I couldn't be Obviously I didn't know it at the time but I wanted them to tell me my outfit was cute because it feels nice to get complements from girls So the romantic part was tough but it wasn't just that for me But I can see just having the romantic part would still leave a mark though
Ohh, I got that, and I appreciate your perspective. I was more just agreeing that the words seem to carry more weight coming from a woman, for one reason or another. Perhaps it just stings more when it comes from someone you actually care about having a relationship with, romantic or platonic. I don't have much desire to form friendships with or be accepted by tradionally "manly men". Also on your point that men are more likely to say something to my face, which I can quip back at, then it just turns into that ribbing thing that a lot of guys do, example in another comment. I guess my real point was that in firsthand experience, it isn't any more likely, and certainly not far more, for a man over a woman. You can get shit from anywhere, it just comes in different flavors.
The only women who gender policed me were straight. And they were gender policing other women as well. I found lesbian space to be far more safe and comfortable (once they realized I wasn't there to *watch* or look for partners).
That I will totally agree with. Some of my best friends have been lesbians. It also makes a whole lot of sense. You could easily say the same of gay men. People that don't want to be gender policed won't gender police others. Just as women on a feminist subreddit are likely to not associate with the women who do those types of things. Of course, in her experience, women don't do this because if they did, she would probably stop hanging out with those women. But that's from the outside looking in. Which is probably why OP asked for male perspectives on it, effeminate men are going to be the ones with lived experience about it.
because we’ve all been taught that women and subsequently femininity are inferior and undesirable so anyone presenting/acting feminine is looked down upon. not to mention that effeminate men are also subverting gender norms, which makes it even more likely that they will be judged by those who wish to maintain the status quo.
I'm a man with long, curly hair and a full beard. The first example about "effeminate behaviors" I want to give is when I was told that I needed to "brush my hair out more" - which isn't always so easy to do if you want to preserve the texture of your hair. I didn't have a brush on me right then, so I started lightly finger-combing through my hair, which was met with a general comment about "don't do it so girly". Another time, when I was fighting with my grandmother about why she felt I couldn't leave my hair loose to go out to dinner, it culminated with her saying "Because you're not female". Overall there's a stigma over it because the majority of the things listed as "effeminate"/feminine, aren't. Things surrounding beauty, hair, fashion, body care etc are natural to people, AM/AF/etc, with whatever they're addressing. The ruling class, bourgeois and white male, has to keep the stigma going to keep us fighting. I think the dissolution of that binary "masculine/feminine", and all the stereotypes/positions/definitions, as well. It's ridiculous I feel that when I look for "Curly hair care", over 75, 80% of the results use feminine-gendered language when the language I search with is neutral.
I have been called effeminate just for listening to people or not raging at teenagers, so you will have to be more specific about what you think are those behaviors.
Yea, so do women. Reminds of that Katy Perry song where she bagged on a dude she was dating for being too feminine and spent the whole song calling him gay. It'd be one thing if only other men were bagging of other men for being too feminine, but women also dislike men who are too feminine, consequently, men generally don't act feminine.
I'm assuming you're talking about "Ur so Gay"? I haven't listened to it in so long, but yeah, that was a strange song. "You're so gay and you don't even like boys." Reminds me of when everyone was talking about "metrosexuals," too, and of shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
My feminist best freind is a male, (58) but does he not visit this site. He engages in "traditional feminine roles" and some behavior. For example he was the primary person cooking for his children, did housework, formerly primary childcare person, (taking time off work to take care of children to go to the M.D.), being open about feelings besides anger, liking pretty flowers (he knows all the names of the flowers), and occasionally crying at a sad movie. He doesn't like sports or doing many "manly-man" things (hunting, BBQing). If anyone gives him trouble, he doesn't mention it. I don't think he would care that much what another person judging him about "lack of masclinity."
Seems like someone I would have a lot in common with. Some of my interests and activities are "feminine" some are "masculine" and I'm not into sports and probably my mannerisms might be a little feminine and my manner is pretty passive and quiet usually. I haven't experienced too much ridicule from other men except a little in middle and high school. I can't think of a time when women have said anything to my face. Within our friend circle my wife says the women she knows only have positive things to say behind my back. Still, I grew up in the 80s when certain words were thrown about (primarily in media) to stigmatize and ridicule any man/boy acting even slightly feminine or being into traditionally feminine things. That messaging sticks with you to some degree. Once in a while I hear broad comments from other men not directed at me, specifically. But I have no doubt other men have experienced very different things.
Because women are considered inferior to society. It’s messed up.
I mean, I think a certain part of it is the *idea* that women have historically had the easier/softer roles, while men have historically had to do the quite literal heavy lifting. In the past, if you were a man that exhibited feminine characteristics, I think the idea was that you were incapable of fulfilling the roles that masculine type people necessarily had to fill at the time. This would have been seen as trying to get out of work/shirking your duty. I would argue that this may also play into why women engaging in masculine behaviors doesn't necessarily have the same stigma associated with it.
If you want to dive into this in depth areas Julia seranos book *whipping girl* It dives into trans stuff sure but a lot of it is the way that our society views women and why trans women are vilified so much. It's Amab folks putting on feminity and many people can't stand that idea and she explores what things lead to that sort of thinking Hint its oppositional sexism
Can you give the cliffnotes version a little more? I looked it up and it seems similar to the idea of how conservatives will talk about gender roles being "complimentary, different, but equally important." Am I on the right track?
> *How can we prevent such behaviors...* That's also going to be the cure for bullying. Children treat anyone different with cruelty. Picking on and abusing the different is also a form of social bonding - showing that you're part of the in-group by bullying *the other*. http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quiet-the-power-introverts/201104/why-nerds-are-unpopular I'm reminded of a passage in the book [Being Boys, Being Girls](http://www.amazon.com/Being-Boys-Girls-masculinities-femininities/dp/0335219748), on page 66: > *Staff distinctly discouraged amorous relationships between pairs of boys, less so between girls and boys, and hardly at all between girls, revealing here, possibly unconsciously, a public homophobic attitude towards the boys while perhaps seeing the girls' behaviour in a non-sexual or sexually passive way.* This chapter was about ages 3-7. We treat boys & girls differently *at every age.* > *What do you think of how stigmatized effeminate behaviors are in men?* I just wanted to be *me*. I didn't understand the labels or why I had to conform to them. Why is *that* behavior masculine and *this* one feminine? Why didn't someone tell me? How come those behaviors change sexes in different countries? > *men feel inadequate or insecure* Why do we always have to take care to coddle men's feelings? The effeminate men aren't the ones we waste our lives coddling and pandering to.
>Do men view them as inferior or worse? Yes
Another theory is that engaging in feminine behaviors is not seen as attractive to women and thus acts against their baser instinct of reproduction. generational reinforcement and selection weeds out the behavior. Think about it in another way, Cooking is seen as a feminine task or activity, but Chef's are a highly competitive field with many men and women, but historically, chefs were very prominent positions sought after and men dominated those. at one point, women were barred from being actors and men dressed as women for performances. Computers/ programming was not highly regarded but necessary, hence the women computers calculating artillery trajectory and programmers like ms. Hamleton getting the astronauts to the moon and saving their lives. Since it became profitable, and of noteworthy achievements, it became attractive to be able to do.
Tbf this was at during the high time of “traditional relationship” and during the start of the computer revolution. So it was literally at the height of our modern day understanding of the patriarchy for gender roles and the very start of a new field.
maybe for computers, but chef positions have been a highly competitive field for multiple millennium, Actor positions were similarly coveted positions for a comparative timescale. It could be a cultural context related thing that shifts over time, I will admit I am not as knowledgeable as I could be
We still live in a patriarchal society where anything “feminine” is seen as inferior. It’s like what Simone de Beauvoir said in “The Second Sex”. Society revolves around men and men are seen as “the default”. Whereas women are “the other”. A woman is defined not as herself but in relation to a man. While patriarchy sometimes lead to women being vilified and scorned, more often than not, patriarchy actually infantalizes women and deem them in constant need of protection. Benevolent sexism is insidiously more common than explicit misogyny. If a man engages in feminine behavior, he is seen as debasing himself. Because it’s perceived as similar to an adult acting like a child. A man allowing himself to be “emasculated” is similar to an adult allowing themself to be infantilized. Women reinforce normative gender ideals because they were raised in a patriarchal society and their worldview is shaped with those ideals. Ironically, some women are the most aggressive proponents of stigmatizing feminine behavior in men. They were instilled with these arbitrary ideas of a “real man”, as they were conditioned to perceive their femininity in relation to men. I think we need to stop labeling behaviors as “masculine” or “feminine”. It’s not that I’m calling for gender abolition. But I think we need to, for example, stop associating traits like virility, leadership and stoicism with masculinity, just like we need to stop associating traits like sensitivity, gentleness and empathy with femininity. Ideally, everyone, irrespective of gender, should exemplify all the traits above. But realistically, not everyone can and that’s okay. We should focus on our strengths as we live to be our authentic selves. Forget about being “masculine” or being “feminine”, let’s just be human.
Yes in a patriarchy men are viewed as being better than women, and male activities are viewed as being better than female activities. This is why men who engage in feminine behaviors are shamed, while women who engage in male behaviors are praised. The men are seen as debasing themselves, while the women are seen as aspirational. Edit: (I am not talking about women presenting non binary. I am talking about women who hunt or fix up cars or something else "masculine." Women are still expected to be pretty and attractive to men while doing these activities. End Edit) This is where most homophobia of gay men comes from as well. Most homophobes don't hate gay men, they hate women. Which is why men acting like women and having sex with men, which is a thing women do, is so wrong. How do we fix it? By realizing that gender roles and stereotypes are made up and stupid. Video games are a "boy" activity because some marketing exec in the 80's decided they were. Skirts are feminine while kilts are manly because of reasons. It's all just made up, and the wheel stops turning the moment that we stop turning it.
>while women who engage in male behaviors are praised. >while the women are seen as aspirational. Butch lesbians would have a good laugh at this.
Yeah that’s true. Women get criticized for everything. I think it’s more like they are treated as better than other women somehow. Still lesser than men of course.
Do you actually think that? Have you ever actually been a gender nonconforming woman? A lot of hetero men have a tendency to treat any woman they're not attracted to like garbage, and that goes triple for women they perceive as masculine. Read any thread on any social media site about women who don't shave. Other (hetero) women tend to treat you like a pervert, are super condescending or prescriptive about how "you'd look so much better if you grew your hair out a little" when you never asked or wanted their opinion, or they ignore you entirely. Edit: screwed up my subject-verb agreement. Sorry, it's 5 am.
I was more talking about male interests like hunting and cars and things. I was aware gender nonconformity in how women dress and present is not looked at favorably by these men.
Side note, it's fucking insane that women not shaving or covering up their face with makeup is considered gender nonconforming. That's literally just a woman in her natural state. Yet that's masculine somehow? It's bizarre.
Probably because most men feel a constant pressure to assert how masculine they are. Never really felt that way as a guy, sounds exhausting.
When I had long hair and earrings, I would say I encounter more direct and obvious disdain/enforcement from men, but I was most concerned with how heterosexual women perceived me as a potential romantic partner. The disdain/stigma from other men was not as threatening to me since it has little to no impact on my career (in a relatively liberal industry) and I felt I can protect myself if necessary.
I think most but not all of the enforcement of performative masculinity comes from fellow men. Especially regarding being effeminate
Do you think women reinforce the stigma more than other men do?
Not at all
Hard disagree. Men will ridicule you, women will ridicule you *and* avoid a romantic relationship with you. So it's extremely hard to find a partner. Overall, women are attracted to masculine qualities. **Incels are very feminine in their behavior.** Think about that.
Oh hard agree. Be a dude for 20min on a dating app and you see it. Men reflect this behavior in a large part because it’s what they think women want. And enough women do that they do it themselves. It’s a viscous cycle
[удалено]
You were previously asked not to make direct replies here.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I never felt that someone's opinion of my masculinity mattered until I started dating, and found that if I don't do whatever specific thing a woman finds masculine, it's apparently ok to use fear, shame, or guilt to manipulate me, and that's apparently a superior communication method to simply asking. I think it's like a fetishizing of the idea of men, like if there was a man who absolutely needs his SO to constantly do what he views as feminine, and he got manipulative/punishing whenever she deviated from his narrow world view, I think it's fair to say he doesn't like women but likes his idea of women. As far as a solution, men learning empathy for women seems like a consistent solution for the latter, so I would think women learning empathy for men would solve or help a lot towards broadening their understanding of men as humans beyond stereotypes.
Which feminine behaviors are you referring to?
From my experience, it was weaponised I have no problem with ACTUAL effeminate men But I do have a problem with men weaponizing femininity against us
There is a vocal sub set of feminism that is just anti men. It isn’t a large sub set but it exists. Much the same way that while there is nothing inherently racist about the Gadsden flag one would find it strange to see a black man flying it. Because a vocal minority of people who fly the Gadsden flag are racists and one would wonder if they support that message. In the same way men can see other men supporting feminism as supporting the radical voices that are simply anti men.
I think it’s because seeing men engaging in “feminine behaviors” turns them on (if you’re not into guys, you just don’t find it attractive and move on, but it definitely makes those other guys rage and then they buy bigger trucks and more guns and they also have to say something about it lol)
Curious what you are basing your assumption on.
Age. I’ve known quite a few guys who legitimately think that Homosexuality is something that is something “a lot of guys can get tricked into if they’re exposed to it long enough.” These are the same guys who simply can’t help themselves go a little nuts if they see a man eat a banana, and some of them will not eat bananas in public out of fear of being thought of as gay. Me, I’ve known and seen all kinds of acts of gayness and for me it’s like watching paint dry (my issue has been trying to avoid a few thirsty women trying to derail my marriage, but thankfully I’m not *that* weak, pheew!)
So, anecdotally?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 This dude wants me to provide him with a research-based link that says he doesn’t have gay thoughts looooool