What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[ruby sparks]

It's really a shame that men still think that women must be nice at all times, must never express anger, no matter how righteous, at the misogyny and violence directed at women by men.

That must be so tough for men to hear.

I think you are reading something into what I said that isn't there.

Listen, I'll criticise any article that I think is ott, whether it's written by a man, a woman or a gnu. It's a preference for balance and accuracy, that's all.

 

[Toni]

It's really a shame that men still think that women must be nice at all times, must never express anger, no matter how righteous, at the misogyny and violence directed at women by men.

That must be so tough for men to hear.

I think you are reading something into what I said that isn't there.

Listen, I'll criticise any article that I think is ott, whether it's written by a man, a woman or a gnu. It's a preference for balance and accuracy, that's all.

There is a difference between an article and an opinion piece. The piece I posted a link to was the latter.

Of course you are entitled to criticize an article or an opinion piece or a post using whatever criteria you deem appropriate.

Just as I'm free to point out how tough it seems to be for men to realize that a lot of women are angry about a lot of things pertaining to men and what they do/do not do and how they do/don't do it --and how they say it as well.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just as I'm free to point out how tough it seems to be for men to realize that a lot of women are angry about a lot of things pertaining to men and what they do/do not do and how they do/don't do it --and how they say it as well.

Yes, you are.

And we're all (including me) prone to agreeing with stuff that we already find agreeable, and that includes you. You like that article (opinion piece) because it chimes for you personally.

And having been married for 30 years I know all about rants and outbursts of anger, from both the receiving and transmission ends, and how one can go a bit too far during them, and indeed how easy it is for the receiver to overreact to them, and how it's important not to, in order to allow the anger to be expressed, for the long term good of the relationship.

But, this piece wasn't quite like that. It was written and presumably edited and mulled over, in the cold light of day. To me it beggars belief that she could in those circumstances maintain some of the things she said, things that weren't even part of her rant to the husband.

By the way, I'm not asking you to dislike the piece, just as you're not expecting me to like it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Just as I'm free to point out how tough it seems to be for men to realize that a lot of women are angry about a lot of things pertaining to men and what they do/do not do and how they do/don't do it --and how they say it as well.

Sure, and guys are free to point out how "weak, irrational and overemotional" women are and how women don't respond well when they say it, and how they say it. Doesn't make them right. Sure, some women are like that. Others are not. And it doesn't make their "generalization" not prejudiced and rather hateful and dismissal of those who are nothing like that. Same goes for you in regard to men.

 

[laughing dog]

Just as I'm free to point out how tough it seems to be for men to realize that a lot of women are angry about a lot of things pertaining to men and what they do/do not do and how they do/don't do it --and how they say it as well.

Sure, and guys are free to point out how "weak, irrational and overemotional" women are and how women don't respond well when they say it, and how they say it. Doesn't make them right. Sure, some women are like that. Others are not. And it doesn't make their "generalization" not prejudiced and rather hateful and dismissal of those who are nothing like that. Same goes for you in regard to men.

Unti you understand what a generalization actually is, you will continue to make such false observations.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

This is a long thread. I have to say, the metoo movement hasn't made me rethink what it means to be a man but it has made me think quite a bit and reevaluate quite a few of the ideas that I might have not recognized before.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just as I'm free to point out how tough it seems to be for men to realize that a lot of women are angry about a lot of things pertaining to men and what they do/do not do and how they do/don't do it --and how they say it as well.

Sure, and guys are free to point out how "weak, irrational and overemotional" women are and how women don't respond well when they say it, and how they say it. Doesn't make them right. Sure, some women are like that. Others are not. And it doesn't make their "generalization" not prejudiced and rather hateful and dismissal of those who are nothing like that. Same goes for you in regard to men.

Unti you understand what a generalization actually is, you will continue to make such false observations.

Aw c'mon, the article is full of huge (negative) generalisations and Toni does regularly use similar language. How much offence one takes or doesn't take about that sort of thing, or why it happens, or whether it's hate or anger or unintended miscommunication, or how excusable it is or isn't, is arguably a slightly different matter, but it's just a plain fact in both cases and not a false observation. Now it doesn't make either the article writer or Toni a bad person and I'm not picking on anyone. Tomorrow I'll likely be disagreeing with Jolly about something. ETA: in fact, I'm just about to do it in 10 seconds from now in another thread.

You, on the other hand incessantly, since I've arrived at this forum, play the person (usually the same person or persons ad nauseam) rather than the point, often to the level of inconsistency, boring predictability as to which side you will take no matter what the point being made, or absurdity (as here, imo) and sometimes to the stage of continual harassment, ironically, given your supposed objections to that when it suits you to call it out.

 

[Toni]

Unti you understand what a generalization actually is, you will continue to make such false observations.

Aw c'mon, the article is full of huge (negative) generalisations and Toni does regularly use similar language. How much offence one takes or doesn't take about that sort of thing, or why it happens, or whether it's hate or anger or unintended miscommunication, or how excusable it is or isn't, is arguably a slightly different matter, but it's just a plain fact in both cases and not a false observation. Now it doesn't make either the article writer or Toni a bad person and I'm not picking on anyone. Tomorrow I'll likely be disagreeing with Jolly about something. ETA: in fact, I'm just about to do it in 10 seconds from now in another thread.

You, on the other hand incessantly, since I've arrived at this forum, play the person (usually the same person or persons ad nauseam) rather than the point, often to the level of inconsistency, boring predictability as to which side you will take no matter what the point being made, or absurdity (as here, imo) and sometimes to the stage of continual harassment, ironically, given your supposed objections to that when it suits you to call it out.

Again: it's an opinion piece, not an article.

It is about the anger that (many) women feel right now, despite the fact that they may be married to men they think are good people who treat women well.

The fact is--and it is a FACT--that almost every single woman will face sexual harassment, assault, rape, or discrimination based on her gender by the time she gets out of high school. Frankly, quite a bit sooner. And for far too many of us, it's all of the above, at an age that is far younger than men would like to admit.


We're just done swallowing it, making nice, smiling, stuffing the anger inside.

Some men will just say: mean, scary ANGRY woman! She's just over-emotional! We like nice, sweet, demure women with quiet voices who tell us how nice WE are, not those mean, scary, ANGRY women! While having nothing but sympathy for boys who are molested by priests and righteous anger not just at the individual priest but at the entire Catholic church, Catholicism, religion and god. Not every boy raised in the Catholic church was abused. Not every priest in the Catholic church abused little boys (or girls). Pretty much everybody recognizes that but still feels quite justified in their anger and fury at priests and the Catholic church.

What gives with that?

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

Or at least accept that women have good reason to be angry?

 

[ruby sparks]

Unti you understand what a generalization actually is, you will continue to make such false observations.

Aw c'mon, the article is full of huge (negative) generalisations and Toni does regularly use similar language. How much offence one takes or doesn't take about that sort of thing, or why it happens, or whether it's hate or anger or unintended miscommunication, or how excusable it is or isn't, is arguably a slightly different matter, but it's just a plain fact in both cases and not a false observation. Now it doesn't make either the article writer or Toni a bad person and I'm not picking on anyone. Tomorrow I'll likely be disagreeing with Jolly about something. ETA: in fact, I'm just about to do it in 10 seconds from now in another thread.

You, on the other hand incessantly, since I've arrived at this forum, play the person (usually the same person or persons ad nauseam) rather than the point, often to the level of inconsistency, boring predictability as to which side you will take no matter what the point being made, or absurdity (as here, imo) and sometimes to the stage of continual harassment, ironically, given your supposed objections to that when it suits you to call it out.

Again: it's an opinion piece, not an article.

It is about the anger that (many) women feel right now, despite the fact that they may be married to men they think are good people who treat women well.

The fact is--and it is a FACT--that almost every single woman will face sexual harassment, assault, rape, or discrimination based on her gender by the time she gets out of high school. Frankly, quite a bit sooner. And for far too many of us, it's all of the above, at an age that is far younger than men would like to admit.


We're just done swallowing it, making nice, smiling, stuffing the anger inside.

Some men will just say: mean, scary ANGRY woman! She's just over-emotional! We like nice, sweet, demure women with quiet voices who tell us how nice WE are, not those mean, scary, ANGRY women! While having nothing but sympathy for boys who are molested by priests and righteous anger not just at the individual priest but at the entire Catholic church, Catholicism, religion and god. Not every boy raised in the Catholic church was abused. Not every priest in the Catholic church abused little boys (or girls). Pretty much everybody recognizes that but still feels quite justified in their anger and fury at priests and the Catholic church.

What gives with that?

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

Many men, and an increasing number as far as can be told, are able and willing to empathise with women, partly as a result of a decline in traditional gender roles.

Other than that, I've made my points at least a couple of times already and I don't see much to be gained by restating them over and over.

 

[laughing dog]

Unti you understand what a generalization actually is, you will continue to make such false observations.

Aw c'mon, the article is full of huge (negative) generalisations and Toni does regularly use similar language. How much offence one takes or doesn't take about that sort of thing, or why it happens, or whether it's hate or anger or unintended miscommunication, or how excusable it is or isn't, is arguably a slightly different matter, but it's just a plain fact in both cases and not a false observation. Now it doesn't make either the article writer or Toni a bad person and I'm not picking on anyone. Tomorrow I'll likely be disagreeing with Jolly about something. ETA: in fact, I'm just about to do it in 10 seconds from now in another thread.

Generalizations are either relevant/useful or irrelevant/not useful, but taking them as absolutes that apply to every person or item in the category is foolish

You, on the other hand incessantly, since I've arrived at this forum, play the person (usually the same person or persons ad nauseam) rather than the point, often to the level of inconsistency, boring predictability as to which side you will take no matter what the point being made, or absurdity (as here, imo) and sometimes to the stage of continual harassment, ironically, given your supposed objections to that when it suits you to call it out.

I am sure the irony/hypocrisy of that observation is lost on you.

 

[Toni]

Again: it's an opinion piece, not an article.

It is about the anger that (many) women feel right now, despite the fact that they may be married to men they think are good people who treat women well.

The fact is--and it is a FACT--that almost every single woman will face sexual harassment, assault, rape, or discrimination based on her gender by the time she gets out of high school. Frankly, quite a bit sooner. And for far too many of us, it's all of the above, at an age that is far younger than men would like to admit.


We're just done swallowing it, making nice, smiling, stuffing the anger inside.

Some men will just say: mean, scary ANGRY woman! She's just over-emotional! We like nice, sweet, demure women with quiet voices who tell us how nice WE are, not those mean, scary, ANGRY women! While having nothing but sympathy for boys who are molested by priests and righteous anger not just at the individual priest but at the entire Catholic church, Catholicism, religion and god. Not every boy raised in the Catholic church was abused. Not every priest in the Catholic church abused little boys (or girls). Pretty much everybody recognizes that but still feels quite justified in their anger and fury at priests and the Catholic church.

What gives with that?

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

I've made my points at least a couple of times already and I don't see much to be gained by restating them over and over.

Your point being: #WhySoAngry?#NotAllMen#DefinitelyNotMe#WhyCan'tYouJustSayItNicelySoIt'sEasiertoIgnoreYouANDFeelGoodAboutMyself?

 

[ruby sparks]

Your point being: #WhySoAngry?#NotAllMen#DefinitelyNotMe#WhyCan'tYouJustSayItNicelySoIt'sEasiertoIgnoreYouANDFeelGoodAboutMyself?

Yes. Something like that. Or maybe not that at all. I'll let you decide, since you're so good at mind-reading.

ps sorry, I edited my last post while you were replying.

 

[Toni]

Your point being: #WhySoAngry?#NotAllMen#DefinitelyNotMe#WhyCan'tYouJustSayItNicelySoIt'sEasiertoIgnoreYouANDFeelGoodAboutMyself?

Yes. Something like that. Or maybe not that at all. I'll let you decide, since you're so good at mind-reading.

ps sorry, I edited my last post while you were replying.

When people close down, mind reading is what is left.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here it is:

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

Many men, and an increasing number as far as can be told, are able and willing to empathise with women, partly as a result of a decline in traditional gender roles.

And of course, many men already did it even in the past, albeit without as much direct insight as today. And part of the traditional male gender role was about looking after and protecting women and trying to make them happy, and many men took it very seriously indeed, not least as husbands, sons, brothers and fathers. Many men in fact, in traditional terms, made enormous sacrifices for the women in their lives and in their societies.

 

[Toni]

Here it is:

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

Many men, and an increasing number as far as can be told, are able and willing to empathise with women, partly as a result of a decline in traditional gender roles.

I could be mistaken, but I believe you've written that you, yourself, have changed over the years and raising daughters has helped that along. I know that my father felt much differently about his own daughters' abilities and opportunities and rights than he did about the abilities, rights and opportunities of any of his wives. (Like all good conservatives, he was married multiple times, including the obligatory bleached blonde with enormous boobs who was nearly two decades younger than he was) or most women or women in general. How he treated his daughters did not erase how he behaved towards his various wives and what he thought about women's role in society in general.

I'm not saying you are like my father in his sexist attitudes. I am really sure you are not. I'm saying that all of us sometimes slip into prejudices and beliefs that are not supported by reality, that women are treated poorly in many respects (men are as well but that is not the topic of this conversation within this thread) and that sadly, horrifyingly, your daughters and mine must face a horrifying amount of gender bias, discrimination, harassment, and sexual assault at the hands of men.

Women cannot fix this, or at least cannot fix this in a way that men would like very much.

Men need to. Saying "I'm not like that!" is about as useful at ending the general harassment and threats of violence women face as me saying "I'm not like that!" and expecting that lets me off the hook with regards to racism. I mean: good for you and good for me but that's not enough. And saying that doesn't apply to us is actually quite horrifying because it lets us off the hook for what happens in The Real World--and it tells those who are being harmed that the people they thought were their allies are in fact, self satisfied assholes who won't look beyond the ends of their noses and certainly won't do any self examination or stand up when they see something that isn't right, much less advocate for better laws, better policies, better enforcement. Fairness. Equality.

 

[Toni]

Here it is:

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

Many men, and an increasing number as far as can be told, are able and willing to empathise with women, partly as a result of a decline in traditional gender roles.

And of course, many men already did it even in the past. And part of the traditional male gender role was about looking after and protecting women and trying to make them happy, and many men took it very seriously indeed, not least as husbands, sons, brothers and fathers.

Looking after, protecting and trying to make women happy is not the same thing as empathy or treating women as equal. It is frankly what a good herdsman will do with his livestock. Happy cows give better and more milk!

Seriously, women have been treated as property--chattel! until quite recently. I think I'm a little older than you are but as I've said many times before, I've been told to my face that I didn't need to earn as much money as a male co-worker because I am female. Quite recently, a co-worker opined that he didn't understand why I was working since my husband had such a good job. Quite recently, I was expected to type up the notes and put the presentation together on a group project where the white guy was in charge and the Asian man was put in charge of the math. Despite the fact that I have a great deal more math experience than anyone else in the group.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here it is:



And of course, many men already did it even in the past. And part of the traditional male gender role was about looking after and protecting women and trying to make them happy, and many men took it very seriously indeed, not least as husbands, sons, brothers and fathers.

Looking after, protecting and trying to make women happy is not the same thing as empathy or treating women as equal. It is frankly what a good herdsman will do with his livestock.

I never said it was the same. I was expanding on my point. And I think the 'livestock' angle is overplayed at times.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here it is:

I could be mistaken, but I believe you've written that you, yourself, have changed over the years and raising daughters has helped that along. I know that my father felt much differently about his own daughters' abilities and opportunities and rights than he did about the abilities, rights and opportunities of any of his wives. (Like all good conservatives, he was married multiple times, including the obligatory bleached blonde with enormous boobs who was nearly two decades younger than he was) or most women or women in general. How he treated his daughters did not erase how he behaved towards his various wives and what he thought about women's role in society in general.

I'm not saying you are like my father in his sexist attitudes. I am really sure you are not. I'm saying that all of us sometimes slip into prejudices and beliefs that are not supported by reality, that women are treated poorly in many respects (men are as well but that is not the topic of this conversation within this thread) and that sadly, horrifyingly, your daughters and mine must face a horrifying amount of gender bias, discrimination, harassment, and sexual assault at the hands of men.

Women cannot fix this, or at least cannot fix this in a way that men would like very much.

Men need to. Saying "I'm not like that!" is about as useful at ending the general harassment and threats of violence women face as me saying "I'm not like that!" and expecting that lets me off the hook with regards to racism. I mean: good for you and good for me but that's not enough. And saying that doesn't apply to us is actually quite horrifying because it lets us off the hook for what happens in The Real World--and it tells those who are being harmed that the people they thought were their allies are in fact, self satisfied assholes who won't look beyond the ends of their noses and certainly won't do any self examination or stand up when they see something that isn't right, much less advocate for better laws, better policies, better enforcement. Fairness. Equality.

Well, if I go back to my father's generation, what that involved was him working 365 days a year outdoors in all weathers at an often dangerous job that made him very little money and nearly killed him, just to provide for his family. And to go back a generation further, my granddad had to fight in the trenches and his life was scarred thereafter.

In any case, my main answer to your question was 'Many men, and an increasing number as far as can be told, are able and willing to empathise with women, partly as a result of a decline in traditional gender roles.'

But whatever, I'm not disagreeing with you. I never said there wasn't a fair point in all of this. I just object when it goes ott.

 

[Toni]

Here it is:



And of course, many men already did it even in the past. And part of the traditional male gender role was about looking after and protecting women and trying to make them happy, and many men took it very seriously indeed, not least as husbands, sons, brothers and fathers.

Looking after, protecting and trying to make women happy is not the same thing as empathy or treating women as equal. It is frankly what a good herdsman will do with his livestock.

I never said it was the same. I was expanding on my point. And I think the 'livestock' angle is overplayed at times.

I never appreciated being treated as livestock, myself, so I would have to agree.

 

[Toni]

Here it is:

I could be mistaken, but I believe you've written that you, yourself, have changed over the years and raising daughters has helped that along. I know that my father felt much differently about his own daughters' abilities and opportunities and rights than he did about the abilities, rights and opportunities of any of his wives. (Like all good conservatives, he was married multiple times, including the obligatory bleached blonde with enormous boobs who was nearly two decades younger than he was) or most women or women in general. How he treated his daughters did not erase how he behaved towards his various wives and what he thought about women's role in society in general.

I'm not saying you are like my father in his sexist attitudes. I am really sure you are not. I'm saying that all of us sometimes slip into prejudices and beliefs that are not supported by reality, that women are treated poorly in many respects (men are as well but that is not the topic of this conversation within this thread) and that sadly, horrifyingly, your daughters and mine must face a horrifying amount of gender bias, discrimination, harassment, and sexual assault at the hands of men.

Women cannot fix this, or at least cannot fix this in a way that men would like very much.

Men need to. Saying "I'm not like that!" is about as useful at ending the general harassment and threats of violence women face as me saying "I'm not like that!" and expecting that lets me off the hook with regards to racism. I mean: good for you and good for me but that's not enough. And saying that doesn't apply to us is actually quite horrifying because it lets us off the hook for what happens in The Real World--and it tells those who are being harmed that the people they thought were their allies are in fact, self satisfied assholes who won't look beyond the ends of their noses and certainly won't do any self examination or stand up when they see something that isn't right, much less advocate for better laws, better policies, better enforcement. Fairness. Equality.

Well, if I go back to my father's generation, what that involved was him working 365 days a year outdoors in all weathers at an often dangerous job that made him very little money and nearly killed him, just to provide for his family. And to go back a generation further, my granddad had to fight in the trenches and his life was scarred thereafter.

But whatever, I'm not disagreeing with you. I never said there wasn't a fair point in all of this. I just object when it goes ott.

Women have been saying for decades, for much, much longer than that! very nicely and respectfully.

It's gotten us Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh and a lot of other ignorant, sexist, misogynistic men in power. Each of those is another slap in the face, another assault, another reminder that we can be treated however men want to treat us.

Do you blame those men and boys who were abused by priests for their anger? Are they expected to be sweet about it and #NotAllPriests?

I think almost everyone understand, empathizes, sympathizes and is outraged and horrified at the abuse and at the coverups and denial. No one thinks they don't have good reason to be angry.

Why are women expected to be sweet and quiet and to continue to be very nice about pointing out that we're sick and tired of not only our own abuse but what we know our daughters and granddaughters still face on a daily basis?