I feel like this article really misses the role of these type of men in punishing men who push into more feminine coded habits.
Like most of my hobbies, and my profession of teaching are predominantly female and I’ve never been made to feel punished by upper income people for having these things. It was extremely violently enforced when I was a line cook between hs /university and in k12 school before that.
Like contra my wife’s experiences with workplace sexism, which is more constant even at high levels of achievement. It seems to me to be like cause of and symptom of some of the troubles for struggling men.
I've been kicking around in my head writing about how femininity is a flex for high-status men. Top-half men are allowed to perform femininity. So performing femininity is a signal of top-half status.
I’d read such an article but I think a flex is something that’s really truly an elite phenomenon. From like the slightly above average income of a male elementary school teacher it’s just that we’re given forbearance enough to not be assaulted just for appearing to be wrong at performing.
Like feminist man or goes to therapy for clout does seem to be a real thing but it hides a lot of actual effeminate men.
You think it's more accurate to say feminists have demonized men than it is to point out the still extant features of patriarchy?
I don't think we have to tell men to be more like women. I think we have to show men there are better versions of masculinity.
And I do think we have to tell someone something, however uncomfortable that makes us and however much we worry about moralizing and implying blame. We have to shape behavior through culture because it's fundamentally a cultural problem, not an economic one or anything else easily remedied by a policy toggle.
I think gender as a category is pretty innate. We're always going to slot ourselves into genders, even if the content of those genders is malleable. So I always think the "abolish gender" idea is a fool's errand. I do think we can push for gender being more aesthetic than behavioral.
I don't think normal men with normal hobbies are big into libertarianism either ;)
I think that fighting sexism against men is hard because of a status paradox, so whereas feminists are like "break out of the box! Take on the areas where men have disproportionate power" whereas the men who fight on their own behalf are like "reinforce the box! Do not take on any area where women have disproportionate power!"
Also, because I'm me, I'll add that I think the fact that the work women tend to do is paid less when it's paid at all is sexism, and the fact that so much care labor would not be compensated at all if not for government information makes libertarianism unattended to fairly normal women in a way that feminists don't always seem to grasp when chasing the pay discrimination red herring.
But are working class men suffering because of demonization by feminists or because there are systemic issues with the economy that make working class life way more difficult for men? I don’t see how the culture war and lack of vulnerability are keeping men from being able to afford housing, etc.
There are systemic issues with the economy that make working class life way more difficult for men. I think too few feminists, for my taste, are acknowledging this. Nor do enough of us, for my taste, seemingly acknowledge the ways in which gender makes it harder for men to adapt to those changes.
I feel like this article really misses the role of these type of men in punishing men who push into more feminine coded habits.
Like most of my hobbies, and my profession of teaching are predominantly female and I’ve never been made to feel punished by upper income people for having these things. It was extremely violently enforced when I was a line cook between hs /university and in k12 school before that.
Like contra my wife’s experiences with workplace sexism, which is more constant even at high levels of achievement. It seems to me to be like cause of and symptom of some of the troubles for struggling men.
I've been kicking around in my head writing about how femininity is a flex for high-status men. Top-half men are allowed to perform femininity. So performing femininity is a signal of top-half status.
I’d read such an article but I think a flex is something that’s really truly an elite phenomenon. From like the slightly above average income of a male elementary school teacher it’s just that we’re given forbearance enough to not be assaulted just for appearing to be wrong at performing.
Like feminist man or goes to therapy for clout does seem to be a real thing but it hides a lot of actual effeminate men.
You think it's more accurate to say feminists have demonized men than it is to point out the still extant features of patriarchy?
I don't think we have to tell men to be more like women. I think we have to show men there are better versions of masculinity.
And I do think we have to tell someone something, however uncomfortable that makes us and however much we worry about moralizing and implying blame. We have to shape behavior through culture because it's fundamentally a cultural problem, not an economic one or anything else easily remedied by a policy toggle.
I think it's technically true that some feminists have demonized men. I think it's more helpful to point out the still extant features of patriarchy.
Do you disagree with my take on "positive masculinity" in this post? https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-is-lowkey-anti
I think gender as a category is pretty innate. We're always going to slot ourselves into genders, even if the content of those genders is malleable. So I always think the "abolish gender" idea is a fool's errand. I do think we can push for gender being more aesthetic than behavioral.
Why do you think gender is a more innate way to categorize people than skin color or hair length?
I don't think normal men with normal hobbies are big into libertarianism either ;)
I think that fighting sexism against men is hard because of a status paradox, so whereas feminists are like "break out of the box! Take on the areas where men have disproportionate power" whereas the men who fight on their own behalf are like "reinforce the box! Do not take on any area where women have disproportionate power!"
Also, because I'm me, I'll add that I think the fact that the work women tend to do is paid less when it's paid at all is sexism, and the fact that so much care labor would not be compensated at all if not for government information makes libertarianism unattended to fairly normal women in a way that feminists don't always seem to grasp when chasing the pay discrimination red herring.
But are working class men suffering because of demonization by feminists or because there are systemic issues with the economy that make working class life way more difficult for men? I don’t see how the culture war and lack of vulnerability are keeping men from being able to afford housing, etc.
There are systemic issues with the economy that make working class life way more difficult for men. I think too few feminists, for my taste, are acknowledging this. Nor do enough of us, for my taste, seemingly acknowledge the ways in which gender makes it harder for men to adapt to those changes.