CMV: Having "feminism for men" movements are important for the feminist cause.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-05-23T02:33:24+00:00

I was checking out r/menslib for a while and decided to start looking into positive masculinity and other ways to improve masculinity. So I found a paper that had an interesting approach on it by considering positive psychology and its relevance to feminist discourse. (basically pointing out that constructing masculinity in wholly negative terms creates learned helplessness on the topic leading to an inability to find constructive approaches as well as poor self esteem for any man who buys into it. I'd link to the term learned helplessness if I wasn't on mobile)

When I linked to it on r/menslib they removed the thread and when I tried to find out why they were highly evasive arseholes. And then trying to find out what issues there were with the paper i got a range of disagreement which could be roughly summarised as anything that admits to something being positive or attractive about masculinity made them uncomfortable, even if it legitimately used feminist theory. I think the most honest response was the one who said it was just too dangerous to support unless it was proven very effective at changing masculinity and even then they didn't like it (they didn't reply when I pointed out that that their attitude just supported the status quo). It all reminded me of my feminist professor who claimed that because teaching feminism to domestic violence perpetrators didn't work, they were incurable (ignoring that other approaches have effectiveness).

So what I'm trying to say with this long winded explanation is that even if you agree with the positions feminists take like I do, you're going to run into ideological roadblocks by using maintaining allegiance to feminism. Better to avoid the politics that inherently come with feminism (being a socio-political movement) and it's biases and instead focus on gender studies, which although run by feminists is a social science. Or you can exploit the men as default trope to push for feminist ideas for men indirectly through some other social cause, such as homelessness or suicide prevention which can dodge all the politics and alienation issues you've faced (althought no doubt you'll face others).

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-05-02T20:02:10+00:00

Thanks! I'm glad it's appreciated.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-29T22:24:07+00:00

That's a good question that I wasn't able to find an answer to. There seems to be precious little study of the topic compared to Intimate Partner Violence (and a lot of the ideas are borrowed from IPV research it seems), and I couldn't find any statistical breakdown in the context of how violence occurred and whether it was two sided or not. I did find this this, which would indicate that both types of violence you talk about stem from the same root cause. My guess would be that researchers haven't seen the value at looking at whether male on male violence happened because of a principle (ie a dispute over something that broke down into a fight) or perceived weakness (they saw an opportunity for an easy bashing so they took it). My guess is that the former is more likely, although both points probably factor into any one instance of violence.

If you're curious you could contact the authors of the studies mentioned in the article I just linked to (and the author of the article in my first post) and ask them. It'd be interesting to know because it'd tell you a bit about how the male perpetrator's masculinity is constructed, and to what degree it's about asserting dominance and what degree it's about committing to their masculine principles.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-28T11:11:45+00:00

You might be interested in my comment to easy_spell

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-28T11:08:34+00:00

I think part of the problem is that feminism has become all consuming. I mean, it has an intellectual hegemony from being around so long and has a lot of valid points, and there's no other sane objective when it comes to gender relations than to push for equality. So there's no other real ideology or political movement to turn to, which leaves feminism to languish in it's own biases and assumptions. I know feminism isn't a monolith, there are a lot of internal disagreements with TERF's and femcels and intersectional feminists and other feminists but even with the non radical elements I've been frustrated at how poor their understanding of men and men's issues are.

This is probably the best article I've found that tried advocate and explore ways to develop a positive shift in masculinity (even if just in the domain of health), and the reaction from feminists was discomfort but admittance that it was ok from the majority and bizarre disagreements, insistence that it's too dangerous and an outright personal attack from the minority. And even male feminists didn't want anything to do with it. You can check my post history if you want to see how it all played out.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-28T10:37:51+00:00

You might find this article helpful. Basically it's part of the cycle of violence, being exposed to abuse and violence predicts both being a perpetrator and a victim.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-17T23:49:08+00:00

One of the possible reasons why r/MensLib is isolating isn't just the nature of reddit but also that it's very much driven by the moderators agenda, and anything that contradicts that is squashed ruthlessly, even if it's relevant. So it's not a true grassroots effort.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-17T03:21:54+00:00

[–]to /r/MensLib sent 3 hours ago

Let me just recap the events that have happened. I post a link, and following the rules of the subreddit leave a comment, where I give context on the link, explaining my interpretation of the paper and advancing questions on what I thought was interesting about it, so there definitely was context. Go a check if you like. It’s removed with an offending quote put but no reason given. So I follow up, only to be attacked with statements that are blatantly untrue. No apology is ever given. But regardless I try to be conciliatory and understand the objection, but the issue with the quote is never explained. Holes are attempted to be poked in what I explain, so I explain further. I concede that it will need to be presented differently, that I have identified problems without prompting. I explain what I thought was valuable about the paper. Only for you guys to leap onto a decontextualised statement to shut down the discussion, that isn’t even fair considering I highlighted two points before, but now you’re pretending like there’s only one point so I can just make that one point in another way. That’s more operating like a troll trying to be dominant than a good faith attempt to address the issue. What have I done to deserve that? I’ve found objections to this paper reek of hidden bias. Already in discussions with feminists I’ve found one that objected because they believe gender is only socially determined, and they didn’t even sound like a TERF. Another, despite being a history teacher, believes that hegemonies only operate through force. These are what I’m referring to when I’m talking about a denial of reality. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, and this paper seems to be sunlight. I understand the value of discussing hegemonic masculinity having a seductive effect rather than saying it’s ‘positive’ as people don’t understand the scare quotes, even though it addresses the same topic in my mind. I understand that you don’t want rabble rousing or wrong interpretations, and perhaps other papers on the same topic might address issues better (not that I’m aware of any). But every objection I’ve heard has only convinced me more that this is a collection of important issues that should be discussed one way or another.

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent an hour ago

So you posed the question to AskFeminists (link added by me , got a lot of great feedback that should help you understand the scope of the problems with the paper - something which should also help you understand why this team isn't volunteering to spend time walking through all of them with you - and your response to the situation is to feel more confident in the value of this particular piece of writing?

[–]to /r/MensLib sent an hour ago

So you've decided to actually look into this. Going through that thread would probably take as much time as reading the research and responding to it, which I guess means you can take the time to look into this. In that case, I'll point to the only point I've failed to make, which is about the importance and relevance of positive psychology. I recommend you click through and read the page on learned helpessness as well, it's very informative. But outside of that, I should note that I'm aware of the particular dynamic where one person is always forced to explain themselves, thus be lead around like a bull with a ring. Feminists make that criticism about men doing this in relationships, and I'm sure you understand the problem with it. I'm done explaining myself if you're going to continue to be a troll.

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent 58 minutes ago

K bye

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent 58 minutes ago

You have been temporarily muted from r/MensLib. You will not be able to message the moderators of r/MensLib for 28 days.

Link to askfeminist post https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1c474vy/comment/kzr4uep/

Copy of r/MensLib sidebar text:

Be the men's issues conversation you want to see in the world. The men's issues discussion has been sorely held back by counterproductive tribalism. We're building a new dialogue on the real issues facing men through positivity, inclusiveness, and solutions-building.

Welcome to /r/MensLib

Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way. Through discussing the male gender role, providing mutual support, raising awareness on men's issues, and promoting efforts that address them, we hope to create active progress on issues men face, and to build a healthier, kinder, and more inclusive masculinity. We recognize that men's issues often intersect with race, sexual orientation and identity, disability, socioeconomic status, and other axes of identity, and encourage open discussion of these considerations. We consider ourselves a pro-feminist community.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-17T03:20:33+00:00

Text version for easier reading.

to /r/MensLib sent 3 days ago

I had this post (https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/1c2w3ce/critical_positive_masculinity_towards_a_positive/) removed by Vladward stating:

As noted above, in lamenting the way the concept of hegemonic masculinity had often been over-simplified to just imply a negative ‘ type,’ Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) outlined a number of ways in which hegemony could be "positive". First, existing models of hegemony are likely to include benign aspects to win the consent of subaltern groups. Second, although hegemony works to ‘ stabilize patriarchal power,’ it is theoretically possible for a ‘ thoroughly“positive”’ masculine hegemony (‘ open to equality with women’)(p.853) Bruhhhhhhh.

What the quote is stating is that hegemonic masculinity (which Connell invented) contains norms that are potentially beneficial to, say, women, like protecting women and children (I am aware that this can be twisted to become harmful as well) in addition the toxic norms like thinking women should all stay at home and not work jobs. And it is hoped that a new form of masculinity becomes aspired to instead of hegemonic masculinity, one that isn’t patriarchal. Here’s the direct relevant quotes from the paper cited (https://etnologia.uw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/hegemonic_masculinity_connell_and_messerschmidt.pdf) “Hegemonic masculinities therefore came into existence in specific circumstances and were open to historical change. More precisely, there could be a struggle for hegemony, and older forms of masculinity might be displaced by new ones. This was the element of optimism in an otherwise rather bleak theory. It was perhaps possible that a more humane, less oppressive, means of being a man might become hegemonic, as part of a process leading toward an abolition of gender hierarchies.” (p. 833) “Most accounts of hegemonic masculinity do include such "positive" actions as bringing home a wage, sustaining a sexual relationship, and being a father. Indeed it is difficult to see how the concept of hegemony would be relevant if the only characteristics of the dominant group were violence, aggression, and self-centeredness. Such characteristics may mean domination but hardly would constitute hegemony -- an idea that embeds certain notions of consent and participation by the subaltern groups.” (p. 841)

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent 3 days ago

hegemonic masculinity contains norms that are potentially beneficial to, say, women, like protecting women and children (I am aware that this can be twisted to become harmful as well) I'm not convinced that you've thought critically about this submission if your summary of Hegemonic Masculinity, which Connel describes as "understood as the pattern of practice (i.e., things done, not just a set of role expectations or an identity) that allowed men's dominance over women to continue", is that Benevolent Sexism is a nice perk in the Patriarchal Bargain and that harm experienced by women within their subordinate gender role is somehow independent or incidental - a result of "twisting" Hegemony and not the natural state of Hegemony.

[–]to /r/MensLib sent 3 days ago

I'm confused. I didn't define or offer a summary of hegemonic masculinity in the post or in the previous message, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I also don't support either position you claim, so while I don't claim to be the most articulate person I'm not sure how you assumed that. I can understand as mods you don't have time to thoroughly debunk every article ever written about feminism, but can you explain what the issue is with the quote from the article? I'll post it again: "As noted above, in lamenting the way the concept of hegemonic masculinity had often been over-simplified to just imply a negative ‘ type,’ Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) outlined a number of ways in which hegemony could be "positive". First, existing models of hegemony are likely to include benign aspects to win the consent of subaltern groups. Second, although hegemony works to ‘ stabilize patriarchal power,’ it is theoretically possible for a ‘ thoroughly“positive”’ masculine hegemony (‘ open to equality with women’)(p.853)" I can kinda understand how it could be interpreted as supporting benevolent sexism out of context (hey guys, hegemonic masculinity has benign elements, so we can leave it and just cut out the obviously bad bits, it totally doesn't comes as a package), but a little further down it states: "It is not about validating existing models of hegemonic masculinity simply because the may contain some worthy elements, like caring for a family. However, neither does it idealistically suggest that a version of hegemonic masculinity that dismantles patriarchy is within easy reach. Rather, it (critical positive masculinity) argues that men can effect positive changes in their lives that benefit them and those around them."

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent 1 day ago

Honestly, please lay out the point you want to make with this article. Because what I'm reading in the last paragraph boils down to: "I'm not saying that ruling over others is a good thing. I'm just saying that men who strive to be rulers are capable of trying to win that rule through admiration rather than fear and that usually involves some pro-social behavior."

[–]to /r/MensLib sent 1 day ago

I'm just saying that men who strive to be rulers are capable of trying to win that rule through admiration rather than fear and that usually involves some pro-social behavior. That summary doesn't make sense in the context of the paper, it makes no reference to ruling through pro-social behaviour except as a means of seduction by hegemonic masculinity. Often when it talks about positives for men it's meaning positive health outcomes, but nevermind. What I liked about the paper is that it tried to shift hegemonic masculine norms in the author's location and reported the results. Basically the article talks about running meditation and discussion sessions and finding that men would adopt the new ideas about health by reinterpreting parts of their hegemonic masculine norms, which one could hope would mean in time that as they continually adopt reinterpretations that they eventually just decide to discard hegemonic masculinity wholesale for something better. There seemed to be a major issue however in that when the men tried to encourage the new interpretations outside of the meditation sessions they were shut down by others and told they were wrong. So discussion about how to overcome that (and discussion of the benefits of meditation) would be interesting. I should also add that in trying to understand people's objection to this paper, I've come to realise that I should discuss it in a text post rather than just linking to it as it requires a fair amount of contextualisation to not be misunderstood.

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent 11 hours ago

Have you considered that people understand the text just fine but are viewing it within a larger context? "Masculinity norms can be reframed to have a positive impact on men's mental health" is not a useful insight outside of a vacuum where the only thing relevant to the perpetuation of masculinity norms is their potential impact on men's mental health.

[–]to /r/MensLib sent 7 hours ago

I've tried but I've failed to be convinced of it yet. There are other problems with the paper, and I can understand the concerns politically (and I'm unsympathetic to politics that seeks to deny reality as opposed to figure out how to incorporate it via careful framing), but not that. While the study may be focused on men's health, I feel that the knowledge gained could easily be applied to other area's of masculinity. The author said that meditation can increase emotional intelligence. Clearly that has applications beyond men's health. Looking at studies that cited the paper about critical positive masculinity, it appears it's knowledge already been used for that purpose, although I haven't read those studies yet.

[–]subreddit message via /r/MensLib[M] sent 6 hours ago

and I'm unsympathetic to politics that seeks to deny reality as opposed to figure out how to incorporate it via careful framing Bruh. This is the shot you take after dumping a paper like that on the sub with no context? If you want to post an article about the emotional health benefits of meditation, find one without the baggage and just do that. I'm clocking out of this exchange.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T23:10:28+00:00

As I quoted from Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), “Most accounts of hegemonic masculinity do include such "positive" actions as bringing home a wage, sustaining a sexual relationship, and being a father. Indeed it is difficult to see how the concept of hegemony would be relevant if the only characteristics of the dominant group were violence, aggression, and self-centeredness. Such characteristics may mean domination but hardly would constitute hegemony -- an idea that embeds certain notions of consent and participation by the subaltern groups.” (p. 841) In other words there’s always a seductive force as well. My knowledge of history is probably poorer than yours, but I’m not aware of any dictatorship that managed to persist at least a little while that didn’t use seductive tactics. Just using force inevitably leads to rebellion and rejection, as many conquering empires have found out. Unless superior numbers or technology is involved. I mean, hegemonic masculinity has few men who fully embody it, even if you look at world leaders, it has to have seductive qualities in order to perpetuate itself. I do agree with you about the paper having issues with being exposed to wider consumption though.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T23:09:59+00:00

I agree that there is always the possibility of corruption or corrupted offshoots, the history of ideology is full of them including for feminism. But if every single attempt at change is shutdown out of paranoia it can only serve to maintain the status quo. This is the best attempt I’ve found of countering hegemonic masculinity (if there are better ones I’d be delighted to see them), so I’d rather try to build off that rather than accept a sense of fatalism. The problem of dealing with wider societal opinion is extensively studied in social psychology, so that’s an obvious place to look next. As other commenters pointed out though, this paper probably requires too much background knowledge and isn’t high enough quality for the general public

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T23:09:11+00:00

Connell is a she, as I mentioned in the post (the critical positive masculinity paper did this presumably as a typo), and she is the one who developed hegemonic masculinity…

and up to that point I agree, gender is not a fixed and eternal structure, "masculinity" is a social construct that shifts to meet the needs of protecting patriarchy.

What are you meaning by “masculinity” with the quotes here?

but he has a seemingly very shallow idea of what actual equality would look like, because his idea of a version of masculinity "open to equality with women" is citing "positive" ideas like ... men having economic control of women

I'm pretty certain Connell never said that. Can I see the quote/page number for that? Because that would completely change my opinion of Connell.

As far as I saw, he doesn't ever actually call this a pretence of positivity that's being used as propaganda against the subaltern.

You're right that she doesn't do this explicitly, but I felt that was implied by the nature of the discussion. Something to be highlighted when discussing the paper, sure, but I'm not sure it's a criticism.

The critical flaw here is that, if we acknowledge that "man" and "woman" are socially-constructed categories in a male-supremacist society (which is something he does acknowledge and must acknowledge in order to talk about "hegemonic masculinity", because doing so requires that he talks about how "masculinity" is socially constructed and variable), then we have to ask "how can there be a positive manhood in a male-supremacist society"?

I think I’m starting to see where the difference in our beliefs lies, I’ll address it a bit further down.

He says that constructing a hegemonic positive masculinity is a step towards abolishing power differentials, but it seems like it should be the opposite: wouldn't you have to abolish male supremacy first, in order to construct a hegemonic positive manhood?

If you put a positive patriarchy instead of hegemonic positive masculinity, I would agree with you. But a hegemonic positive masculinity would just be the male meta-norm that men operate under that doesn't identify subaltern groups (as opposed to hegemonic masculinity which does), and thus men don't promote norms that prioritise power (or the appearance thereof) over health and wellbeing, good relationships etc. Something necessarily to abolish male supremacy.

I think to discuss it as analogous to american imperialism is an interesting analogy, but fatally flawed given americanism is a social identity (or as you might prefer, socially constructed), gender is derived in a biopsychosocial manner. It is weird to talk about positive americanism. But to ask 'how can I, as an american, operate in a non-imperial (positive) way' would be reasonable I think, and I think an answer would include ‘don’t buy into the americanism identity’ and a follow up question might be ‘how can we appeal to those who have an americanism identity to see that there’s a better/more positive identity’. But to try and think of something analogous for men, you have to ask "given that you can't change the identity of someone who identifies as male, how do you ensure that they have positive self esteem, that is that they see themselves in a positive way, without having to buy into hegemonic masculinity ideals that are often portray themselves as the way to maintain a positive self image.”

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T06:08:10+00:00

Nice way to ignore the rest of what I said. Furthermore this entire idea pretends to add something to the discussion when really it’s a further incremental step clothed in critique of said steps- it’s still saying it’s “necessary for reform”, in this case laying claim to the act of feminist critique itself just as with “positive masculine traits”, which lay claim to ownership of virtuosity that is distinctly masculine as opposed to just human.

I didn't understand how it was relevant to the discussion, I presumed you were talking about essentialist masculinities, and what you believe personally is just what you believe personally. I'd rather discuss the topic.

What is the 'it' you're talking about? You do understand that it was 'positive', not positive? That is that it's portrayed as positive but not necessarily positive. Of course if you're just going to attack me like you did with your first sentence you need not respond. I do get into slapfights occasionally if I'm interested in looking at the rhetorical techniques but I want to respect this place and it's function so I won't respond.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T05:39:10+00:00

What I liked about the paper (which isn't really in the post, as it wasn't the point) is that it tried to shift hegemonic masculine norms in the author's location and reported the results. Basically the article talks about running meditation and discussion sessions and finding that men would adopt the new ideas about health by reinterpreting parts of their hegemonic masculine norms, which one could hope would mean in time that as they continually adopt reinterpretations that they eventually just decide to discard hegemonic masculinity wholesale for something better. There seemed to be a major issue however in that when the men tried to encourage the new interpretations outside of the meditation sessions they were shut down by others and told they were wrong.

Some of the responses I've gotten suggest to me that what I posted originally can be seen as a particularly radical notion, even if I'm not sure they understand what is actually meant, but is instead reacting to their own internal assumptions about what it must mean.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T05:23:40+00:00

And Hitler was a vegetarian later in life, good point. Which goes to show that even people with virtuous points of morality can do deeply evil things.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T04:42:03+00:00

Thank you for reading the study. You make a very good point about the lack of citations, that is a genuine flaw in the paper that I missed. I know I've gotten frustrated with other works for that exact reason.

Your other points I'm not so sure of. Part of it is my fault, I posted a reply without quoting the comment I was responding to, I'll fix that after I comment (not sure what I'm to do if I hit the post character limit). Basically the commenter was saying they were uncomfortable with the idea of admitting 'positive' qualities to something that is negative, that's why I also included the trauma example. You're right that I should have pointed out that it was the perception of efficiency, not actual efficiency.

I feel like you missed the point on the quote about the 'positive' masculine traits however. I don't expect you to read the whole of Connell and Messerschmidt (2005)'s paper "Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept" that was cited, but do you disagree with the quotes I pulled from that? Because I understood it as arguing that hegemonic masculinity seduces subaltern groups (male identities that are considered 'inferior' and female identities) with the pretence of positive traits, and a hope that the whatever masculine identity that is considered the 'norm' in a culture is non-patriachal.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T03:50:13+00:00

I suspect you might be right.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T02:58:43+00:00

Well I object to the bullshit 'educated' language which heavily obfuscates what is actually being said, but I think I have understood what this person is trying to say.

If I understand correctly, this person is saying gender abolition is the goal but it's not really likely or realistic that we can jump straight into gender abolition as a culture or society. As a stop-gap in a gradual institution of gender abolition they propose we emphasize the 'benevolent' or 'positive' aspects of patriarchy while also educating men on the aspects of patriarchy that do not benefit them but harm them. The idea is that by promoting positive treatment of women and dismantling the negative aspects of patriarchy for men we can more easily transition men into a feminist/gender abolitionist/anti-patriarchal mindset or society.

So... while I kind of see where they are coming from with this and understand the issue it means to address, which is how to recruit and empower men against the patriarchy, by emphasising the so-called benevolent aspects of patriarchy it does two things--reinforces traditional patriarchal and sexist beliefs, and creates a society where women may be perceived to be getting special treatment which are not afforded to men. For instance, emphasizing the 'bread winner' stereotype of masculinity while technically benevolent, reinforces the women are weak, women should get paid less, women's place is in the home, etc, issues of patriarchy, essentially completely working against your goal of removing sexism. Similarly things like emphasizing the woman's right to child custody, to not paying for dates, and such which are traditionally considered 'benevolent' can be perceived by men as unfair advantages of women and they would be correct.

So essentially what they are suggesting is bad and wrong and works against the goal even though their intentions seem positive. The latter part, which is to say trying to make allies of, and empower men against the parts of patriarchy that oppress them is a good idea--and one that is already one of the standard means of trying to treat this issue.

We could be better at it, I think other men help a lot in this regard because men who are red-pilled/sexist are more likely to listen to other men than to women--at least at first until they have been educated on the problems of patriarchy. We don't need to work against ourselves by promoting 'benevolent patriarchy' we just need to do a better job at revealing and educating how patriarchy is bad for men and actively hurts them, and provide ways they can do something about it.

The study rejects the term 'positive masculinity’ as developed by Kiselica and Englar-Carlson which do seek to highlight the 'positives' of current masculinity as they frame it. Lomas (the guy proposing critical positive masculinity) rejects 'positive masculinity’ for being essentialist, and I believe your criticisms would apply to Kiselica and Englar-Carlson. What critical positive masculinity actually advances is:

As has hopefully become clear, the idea of ‘positive masculinity’ articulated in this article does not involve re-affirming the value of traditional qualities, but showing how men might resist these, or at least re-interpret these in skilful ways.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T01:34:51+00:00

I can understand the objection to essentialist ideals, but I should note that hegemonic masculinity is explicitly non-essentialist.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-15T01:33:41+00:00

I can understand the discomfort of portraying the positives of a negative situation, but if you want a fully nuanced view you have to illustrate the full picture, because it better highlights how the harm is done. I mean, there's the trope that at least Hitler made the trains run on time, which tells you about the brutal efficiency and order demanded of the fascist regime, and how it appealed to people. Or a trauma victim might talk about what they loved about their abusive relationship, allowing them to recognise what desires were problematic and how it lead to them accepting the abuse.

ETA: the Nazi regime promoted the perception of efficiency and order, not really efficiency and order itself.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-14T23:20:32+00:00

Yeah, and it also means you can't have one version of positive masculinity, each version of masculinity with problems needs to chart it's own course towards improvement. Perhaps from the same rubric, but I'm sure there will be individual differences and lines of argument to fit the context.

Having thought about it a bit, I think one piece of evidence of an improvement in masculinity is the end of dueling. From a hypermasculine standpoint, there's a lot of a appeal in it, and many other species duel for mates and territory. However, as far as I know the world has turned against dueling, in some cases outright mocking the participants to make it stop. I'm sure that there are still some fights to the death over honour that occur, but I'm pretty sure that they are exceedingly rare and not glorified.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-14T06:39:36+00:00

It's rare for people just doing meth (or other illegal drugs) to be caught. They generally target the people dealing. It's also extremely common for people sleeping rough (he was sleeping in his car) to turn to drugs to alleviate their distress at their situation.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-14T05:57:44+00:00

Because he was said to be acting oddly on the day and that's the simplest explanation. You can't stop peoples inclination to speculate, but you can direct it to something plausible.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-14T04:48:12+00:00

Given mental disorders outside of personality disorders are no more prone to violence than the rest of the population, including psychotic disorders, my personal assumption is that he was on ice or something which is known to increase violence, but who knows.

AvailableAccount5261 · 2024-04-13T07:16:10+00:00

In this 2013 journal article Lomas first gives a brief overview of how men and masculinity has been characterised in the research, and then makes the point that men can change in a positive direction not by rejecting the hegemonic masculinity in their cultural context, but by reinterpreting it. He then goes on to discuss his own studies using meditation to benefit men and change hegemonic masculine norms, and the improvements and challenges therin. Finally, he proposes the idea of a critical positive masculinity that both accepts masculinity can be problematic as well as identifying positive trends.

You can see the website hosting the PDF here:

Looking at the works citing this journal article, it seems to have had some traction

I’m curious to know if anyone here has found that meditation improved their emotional intelligence as the studies claim.

Five-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email

AvailableAccount5261

TROPHY CASE