this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
550 points (96.3% liked)
[Migrated, see pinned post] Casual Conversation
3442 readers
143 users here now
We moved to !casualconversation@piefed.social please look for https://lemm.ee/post/66060114 in your instance search bar
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible.
- Avoid controversial topics (e.g. politics or societal debates).
- Stay calm: Donβt post angry or to vent or complain. We are a place where everyone can forget about their everyday or not so everyday worries for a moment. Venting, complaining, or posting from a place of anger or resentment doesn't fit the atmosphere we try to foster at all. Feel free to post those on !goodoffmychest@lemmy.world
- Keep it clean and SFW
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for sharing this. Patriarchy damages men, they're expected to hide their feelings, "man up" and crush emotions inside. It really hurts men and it's totally wrong
A male friend of mine who confides in me was complaining to me about how there are these 'feminists' talking about 'toxic masculinity.' Apparently he viewed some video where a guy was intentionally conflating masculinity with toxic masculinity. I didn't know that at the time, I was just shocked, because he's the biggest victim of toxic masculinity I know. When I said that, he asked me to explain, and I pointed to the fact that his father burned his sketchbooks (this was the 70s) because art is "for girls." Which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
When I explained that toxic masculinity is that, the emphasis to conform to some harmful version of masculinity, he turned on a dime so fast in rage at the asshole who conflated the two.
The thing that hurts my feelings most is when men are taught to forward toxic masculinity that harms them. When they're forged into links in a chain that they would never wield if they knew better.
It sure is sad.
I got to say what grinds my gears more than it should is that some people in their fight against mysogyny and patriarchy are really mindless in their wording. Just today when i browsed reddit (my bad i know) i came across a thread that rightfully was upset about bigoted gay men and someone wrote "being gay does not stop some men from being... you know men. Toxic and Misogynistic." And i just felt getting upset and was wondering if it is really so hard to write "Some men, even when gay, still are toxic and mysogonistic", which is probably what they wanted to say anyways. I think that this can push away some men that already feel dismissed or are struggling.
I completely agree! Words have power!
If I see that sort of thing, I try and correct it. Gently. It never feels good when you get hit with a generalization meant for someone else, but especially when you dislike that generalization, too.
I still argue, especially when my ADHD meds wear off, and my impulse control goes out the window, but we can all at least try to be better to one another.
I'm always surprised to see people defending that kind of language, I've generally got a positive response explaining why it's hurtful, but why try to divide us? I hate that women have to deal with these weirdos too, why am I being grouped with them when I'm only trying to help?
Because feminism is the movement for women. It's literally in the name. But feminism isn't a concrete philosophy - it is a "big tent" of ideas. It's a vibe. Anything can be feminism as long as it feels like feminism. And what feels like feminism? Whatever the people who make up feminists think - ie, whatever women think.
Feminism, as a movement, is a tribe. It is vast and diverse in its members and philosophies, but all identify as feminists. And the golden rule of all tribes is that you must support your compatriots in the face of outsiders. So while some feminists may find the above statement distasteful, and more may believe there is more nuance to be had, few will out and out condemn it on a public forum where non-feminists are included in the discussion. And there are always a few who will defend it as "just venting" or "according to statistics..."
The "all men are trash" narrative is quite common among women. In particular, among women who are experiencing frustration or pain from men. Some of this pain is very real and traumatic. Some of it is run of the mill breakup drama. And most women, at some point in their lives, have probably thought "all men are trash", because they were feeling down or hurt or frustrated. And thus, the narrative is quite common/empathetic to most feminists. As a "big tent" and a "safe space to vent", it is therefore allowed as a legitimate feminist narrative, even if it violates most rational feminist philosophy about egalitarianism.
I think this is a real good explanation, thanks. I hope it will help me to cope when i next time come across a bad generalization. Tbh i shouldn't even feel bad but my sister is also doing this and gets very upset when i point it out.
I mean, I wouldn't cope so much as change your beliefs and behaviors. These generalizations are wrong and bad (at least from my perspective) and should be challenged when you encounter them.
Feminism is many things, but it is not the singular manifestation of objective goodness. It is just an amorphous collection of people who share the same identity. There is nothing wrong with this, and this amorphous blob has done a lot of good in the world, but it doesn't mean that the blob is beyond critique. So when it deserves critique, critique it.
Also, if you are a man and self identify as a feminist... I would reevaluate and stop identifying as a feminist. There are whole feminist truisms about how men/straights/white people/cis people need to shut up and listen. Certainly there is a lot to be learned from listening. But at the same time, the shut up part is telling - the reality is, as a man, you will always be a second class citizen in feminist circles. Your opinions will always carry less weight. You will always be seen as less trustworthy or less competent. You will be excluded from gatherings, conversations, and inner circles because of something you cannot change about yourself. Since feminism is the women's movement, we can understand why this would be the case much of the time. But simultaneously, it is difficult to square this with having a positive self-image. Do you really want to identify with a group where your contributions always have less worth, and where you will never be a member in full standing?
Saying you don't identify as a feminist is like saying you don't identify as a tennis player. Sure, you play tennis occasionally for fun, but you aren't going to make tennis the most important thing in your life. Sometimes you won't get invited to the parties the real tennis players go to, and that is okay, because playing tennis is not a significant part of your identity. For others, it is, and that is okay too. And you shouldn't feel bad if the people at the tennis parties say you don't play enough tennis - those people are just dicks.
Art is for girls?? As if art isn't one of the fundamental parts of being human? As if women haven't been barred from art schools and ateliers for thousands of years?
I cannot describe to you my reaction when he told me that story. It's been 10 years and I'm still stunned.
What, you don't remember any famous Renaissance women painters and sculptors?
Those women were outliers who pursued art despite being met with misogyny in nearly every corner of their field. (Also I know barely any Reneissance artists by name)
Exactly, that guy's dad is an idiot. Clearly, art is for men, and he should have burned his daughter's sketchbook!
Yep exactly!
FYI "patriarchy" is a gendered term which comes from the Latin, originally meaning "church government by patriarchs" (1560s) and later evolved to mean "society or government by elder males" (1630s). Historically, it referred to autocratic rule by men. More recently it has been expanded in feminist theory which broadly ascribes a set of toxic behaviours to men as a group. The problem with this word is that men don't have a patent on toxic behaviour. It's often not men telling other men not to cry and to man up, for example. It's often the women in our lives, and especially our romantic partners. Raising "patriarchy" in this discussion is tantamount to blaming men for the issues they experience, and this is not helpful to anyone. No more than suggesting rape victims are also victims of the "matriarchy." If you understand how offensive that might seem to you, you might understand how offensive your comment can be to men.
FYI,
Partiarchy is not a description of masculinity, toxic or otherwise. Patriarchy is a description of a social heirarchy.
Patriarchy is in large part to blame for toxic masculinity because historically and currently, men with power enforced social rule by men, and therefore enforced social elevation by their own subjective idea of what masculinity should be.
Patriarchy is not much different from (and intrinsically linked to) the idea of a King's divine right to rule - if you were in power, you deserved to be in power, and the qualities of the people in power were therefore the qualities of the people who deserved to be in power. Thus, their ideas of masculinity became long-lasting cultural norms.
Pointing out that the history of patriarchy enforced toxic masculinity is not accusing men themselves of enforcing it on an individual level, or dismissing rhe role that women played in enforcing these gender divisions.
The same can be said for pointing out that the history of Feudalism enforced horrrible class stratification that still impacts Western culture today. Modern day Knights like the late Sir Terry Pratchett and Sir Elton John would agree with that, because individuals can be distanced from and even directly challenge a system that they benefit from, much like men have a moral right and responsibility to challenge the role that the Patriarchy has played in enforcing these outdated gender divisions.
Well it is, and you've laid out the case. If the system in which we currently live is designed for and by men, then a) they have less of a right to complain about their treatment, b) they have some hand in its creation, and c) have a burden to undo it. In fact, most men have no hand in its creation, have every right to complain, and have no burden to undo it. Raising patriarchy in a discussion about issues men face makes no sense unless you are d) allocating blame in some way, e) suggesting that men have a responsibility to fix their own issues, and/or f) ascribing a certain set of toxic behaviour specifically to men. None of those are helpful. None of those are supportive.
The issue is treating men like a homogenous group instead of specifically addressing those in power, who are both men and women.
A) They have every right to complain about their treatment. In fact, that is what we are doing by complaining about the Patriarchy. You should complain too.
Again, the patriarchy hurts men. They are victims of the lasting damage caused by outdated gender norms that originated from men in power and are perpetuated by men who are still in power. Not all men. Not even all men in power. Specifically, men in power who perpetuate the problem.
B) Individual women can play just as big a role as individual men in perpetuating the gender norms that favor patriarchal heirarchy. By pointing out that men are victims of patriarchy, we are specifically pointing out that most of them do not have an individual hand in its creation. If you are not in power, you are not the Patriarchy, and thus you are not the origin of the problem, though you can be perpetuating the problem, regardless of your gender.
C) We all have a burden to undo the lasting damage caused by our society's historical failures. We all have a moral responsibility to improve ourselves as individuals and as a society, regardless of our gender.
D) refer back to (B)
E) refer back to (C)
F) refer back to (A)
Again, the Patriarchy is not a description of men, or a homogenization of a group. It is a description of a social heirarchy. "The Patriarchy" =/= "all men". I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
Individual men are no more responsible for the Patriarchy than individual citizens are responsible for the oppressive behaviors of their governments, unless they support, perpetuate, or refuse to acknowledge it.
There are many, many more men still in power than women. Your last point is laughable.
Again. As I said. Those individual women in power can be responsible too. I absolutely agree with that. They can be responsible for perpetuating the Patriarchy. God knows plenty of literal Queens have done so throughout history.
But if you seriously believe that women as a group hold as much power as men as a group, then this conversation is a waste of time.
And if you seriously believe that men in power throughout history haven't left a mark on today's society, or that it's insulting to men to even talk about that history by giving it a name, then I refer you back to (C). You absolutely have a moral burden to be better than the humans who came before you, and choosing to be offended by that is just burying your head in the sand.
What I'm reading from your writing is that both men and women in power have and continue to contribute to gender norms, which confine and hurt both men and women. If so, why use gendered language at all? There is much research and theory in sociology and specifically feminist studies about the impact of gendered language. I'm sure you broadly agree that "man up" is hurtful gendered language because it implies men should conform to a specific set of subjective behaviour. Why can you not see that a gendered male term for a toxic and harmful system is if not explicitly harmful, certainly implicitly so? Why not use a gender neutral germ like "structural gender roles" or something else which doesn't imply blame? Surely this is not the first time a man has told you he feels offended by your use of this word. Why do you not listen and accept the hurt you cause by your continued use of it instead of just using something less offensive?
Unless, of course, you do intend to imply blame. That men are more to blame. That more men hold power, therefore we should use a gendered word to ensure we are clear who is more to blame.
Men had a lot more power and influence than women, and men continue to have a lot more power and influence. That isn't applying blame. That is indisputable fact. Men as a group are more responsible for gender inequality than women, because men hold more power than women. Again, indisputable fact.
Men hold most of the highest offices of the most powerful nations in the world, and most of those nations still have severe gender disparities that they are not addressing, or addressing terribly slowly. Again, indisputable fact.
The only way to help people see that women do not have an equal amount of power and influence in the modern day is to talk about it. Gender-neutral terms are not always helpful towards that end, because it is not a gender-neutral topic.
The patriarchy isn't harmful gendered language the way "man up" is. Nobody is harmed by the term patriarchy. It is not a weapon used to put men down, it is a term used to describe an unequal power balance between groups of people.
Why, exactly, are you offended by a term that doesn't describe you?
Martin Luther King Jr. described "white moderates" as a major barrier to civil rights. Was he wrong to refer to them by the color of their skin? Did he harm white progressives by doing so?
Should he have used race-neutral terms? Should he have just said "moderates," as if that would hold any of the same power or meaning? Should white progressives have been offended by his description of white moderates?
Are women truly wrong to refer to the vast majority of the people who hold power over them as "men", when it is indisputable fact?
Some men. A minority of men. You're doing the thing right now. "Men" isn't a homogenous group, yet you're clearly placing them into one. Women aren't a minority group. How would you react if a woman wrote a post here about being raped, and I started discussing matriarchy, and how women, as a group, tend to act. Surely that would be a terrible thing for me to do, yet here you are, doing just that.
You make it clear that this is about attributing blame. You've dedicated multiple paragraphs to blaming men as a group. That's why you won't give up the gendered language. This isn't about helping men at all. It's about blaming them, even though you acknowledge most of them are not responsible. You must see how that foments anger from men, and how you are perpetuating negative stereotypes and animosity by continuing to use such toxic gendered language.
I think it's fine to claim that the majority of positions of power are held by men. I think it's wrong to say that "men" are responsible for bad things. If you're specific about the bad men (or even better, bad people), no problem. If you broadly refer to men when describing toxic behaviour, you're blaming people who don't deserve it. Just like one shouldn't blame "women" or the "matriarchy" for things either. Surely you agree with that?
The patriarchy is "some men." The term is literally describing what you want. The subset of men who are in power.
You are not the patriarchy. You should be fighting the patriarchy.
How would I react if you described the matriarchy? What matriarchy? What world do you live in that there is a social heirarchy dominated by women in power?
Please answer the question about white moderates. Was it wrong to refer to them as white? Was that "toxic"?