One of the saddest things I heard was a young kid say he's never heard the word masculinity unless it was paired with the word toxic before it. With that kind of attitude is this any wonder?
Disney has seen a bunch of Marvel flops since they switched the focus to Marvel properties that target women (they've since publicly indicated a course correction on this).
Take a bunch of IP that primarily males are interested in (super-heros), water it down so that it's less male focused, and then find that neither males nor females are interested.
It’s also quite telling that your main complaint is Disney superhero movies. It’s difficult to think of something more juvenile and unimportant.
1. It's been about 30 years since the "strong independent women" meme first started in popular media.
2. Where is the vitriol and backlash in my post to which you are referring to?
Your response looks like a canned one that can be inserted into any discussion about males.
Much longer than that. While there was significant pre-war feminism, it really took off in the 1960s. Perhaps what people mean is a sort of post-"Bechdel test" world, where people will be sharply criticized if they make a piece of media that only has (properly characterized) male characters.
I see it as a co-existence problem. Trying to insist on male-only spaces or male-only values isn't going to fly any more. A lot of traditional masculinity is framed around being "not a woman", an inherently denigratory concept. It needs a programme that is (a) positive and (b) a concept of personhood and value that's not tied to gender.
Co-existence indeed.
That wasn't a women-only problem, IIRC. The Hollywood casting couch (and similar problems) was used against both men and women. Some actors (like Kevin Spacey) were called out/blackballed for unwanted sexual attention/acts that they perpetrated against men.
As far as women being allowed to speak out - everyone is allowed to speak out, but the rich and influential silences people who they have left aggrieved. These include both men and women.
To put things in perspective, you joined a thread discussing a singular male-only problem, and dragged female issues into it, which, on closer inspection, turned out to be not female-exclusive anyway.
This is the problem.
But its up to men to do the work. Women needed decades and decades to figure out what it meant to be a women and how to get what they wanted. They took the time and effort to organise, resulting in suffragettes and women's clubs and feminism and all that. Men could so far skip this all and just coast by on being the default. And now we're stuck with the situation that there are barely any male role models (except incredibly vile and toxic ones like Tate and Peterson), and trying to figure out what it means to be a man in a world that is rapidly changing, where men no longer can just be the breadwinner.
Not only that, but women are also demanding more from men (more emotional maturity, more support with chores and child raising, having a fully developed personality). And too many men seem either incapable or unwilling to change, preferring to lash out against 'woke' and voting for extreme rightwing politics that aims to put women back in the kitchen.
What work would this be? Any organisation to the benefit of males would instantly be shutdown.
What do you have in mind that won't get backlash? I mean, after all, even just a quantitative study has elicited, in this thread, much anti-male sentiment in the form of strawmen.
So I am curious how you see male-advocacy groups proceeding in a manner that has no or limited backlash.
One of my most crank opinions is that superhero stuff is (a) for kids, (b) inherently a bit fascist even if you make it textually anti-fascist, and (c) ultimately like popcorn, something that should be only a small part of a more varied diet.
Now, that's not a terribly strong opinion, and I know it'll make a lot of people mad, but I have personally got fed up with the oversupply of superhero stuff and believe that there should be more movies that mixed-gender adult audiences would like. Maybe find a way of doing an action-romcom that men will like. Characters that have human level ability and must find human level solutions. Probably the problem is that audience has now fragmented, moving the genders further apart.
You must not have seen The Boys (Prime Video) :-)
>
> ... there should be more movies that mixed-gender adult audiences would like. Maybe find a way of doing an action-romcom that men will like.
Maybe has the same problem that changing super-hero movies has - you make less money.
The movie Killers with k-Something-Heigl, that guy from The Butterfly Effect and Tom Selleck was a rom-com that I enjoyed, but AFAIK it wasn't as popular with females as standard rom-coms, and wasn't as popular with males as action movies.
> Characters that have human level ability and must find human level solutions.
That's not why people see movies, though; I might find that entertaining, and you might find that entertaining, but it's a pretty hard sell if if doesn't make enough money.
That's the plan
Now of course he has a bigger sister he deeply loves and that's probably a big part of the deal
[0] https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/fitness/why-ev...
[1] https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/etiquette/how-to-se...
[2] https://www.artofmanliness.com/skills/outdoor-survival/9-way...
[3] https://www.artofmanliness.com/career-wealth/wealth/money-sa...
I don't think his channel is the only one, it's the only one I'm exposed to so kinda tells me there should be quite a bit more of those around, hopefully that way of masculinity gets traction instead of Andrew Tate-esque buffoons.
Culturally there's a lot of differences that won't be patched for generations, social expectations can come from parenting and/or environment, including their society, interactions between genders shaped by those cultural differences from an early age, so on and so forth. Such expectations shape their worldview and place in it, males being told to be tough, not be "a sissy", being shaped into clamming up emotionally. Females being told they can't achieve things solely due to their gender, having to learn to be guarded against potential male aggression, etc.
There's just too much to even start enumerating in a comment but it boils down to cultural expectations from early age, and how those shape people into gendered behaviours as a reaction, not only from the expectations but also the feedbacks happening across gendered higher order effects of those expectations.
A simple example is that I can lift my wife's body but she cannot lift mine. Wouldn't that affect our social behavior in some form? My thinking is going to how other animals have different behavior based on sex
Reducing the comparison to other animals don't really make sense since our societies are many orders of magnitude more complex than other animals, e.g.: the fact of being physically stronger don't explain why until some 100-150 years ago women were considered less intelligent and unsuitable for intellectual work compared to men.
There will be different behaviours due to biological differences, it's just not possible to reduce the vast range of gendered pigeon holing into that, culture is a much higher drive of those, and is empirically visible in societies that moved away from traditionalist views of genders.
Could it be that at some point the biological sex differences sown the gendered culture? I can see that, doesn't mean the perpetuation of it in modern times is due to physical/biological differences.
Those examples you posted that actually are good would also seem to me to be universally important for everyone across all genders. '80 Ways to Be Frugal and Save Money' seems useful for everyone, and while I doubt a lot of people are going to need '9 Ways to Start a Fire Without Matches' immediately, what makes that specifically 'manly' and not good for anyone either going seriously outdoors or prepping.
Yes, I picked those examples deliberately, but I don't see why any of the qualitatively good ones are 'manly'.
For the same reason "Be strong and independent" is a message targeted only at women, even though it can easily double as a universal message.
What was your goal? What was your argument? I said that we need men to be more manly (strong and able to do things that are historically considered to be done by men) and you said that those can be also done by women? I would consider woman able to change a tire, play cards and start fire without matches to be manly. If she wants to, she can of course.
Currently the problem is that we indirectly say to men that being strong is for women and not for men. We say to women "be more manly" and to men "be more womanly", which just perpetuates old cliches, but in reverse.
I think the thread has been a bit derailed in terms of my intention, which was more to point out that I don't feel like the qualities that are mentioned in the original article (mentorship, guidance figures, schoolwork, relationships, future planning) are really represented well by a clickbait website with articles mostly split between 'Top N things you really need to do for X' and things that would be useful to anyone.
I'd even say the 'Get Style', 'Get Strong', 'Get Social' and 'Get Skilled' categories always appear to wander towards (while never approaching) Andrew Tate territory, in terms of their goals.
> Currently the problem is that we indirectly say to men that being strong is for women and not for men. We say to women "be more manly" and to men "be more womanly", which just perpetuates old cliches, but in reverse.
This I agree with, but I don't feel that website is a good example of a role model for the qualities that the original article mentioned were missing.
I agree. Going into "Andrew Tate" territory represents that toxic masculinity for me, it's the far end of spectrum of manliness. But we men don't need to go all the way into absurdity when trying to be more manly. But not all of us are in the same place. Some are too close to unmanly end, some are too close to toxic end. artofmanliness contains articles for both of those people, to move them closer to the center of good manliness (expressed by ideals 'Get Style', 'Get Strong', 'Get Social', 'Get Skilled' and I would add 'Be dependable', 'Be honest').
And being womanly is not an end of spectrum of manliness. Being unmanly (0 of qualities we mentioned, a weak man without style, social or any other skills) is the lowest end of spectrum of manliness.
> This I agree with, but I don't feel that website is a good example of a role model for the qualities that the original article mentioned were missing.
You would have to look more. You have only seen a small sample from each section.
Amazing site and filled with great male content.
But, umm, anyone know of any other good male-centric sites out there?
All I got is Esquire.com, and it's clearly not the same kinda thing.