It’s Question Time again. I’ve been reading through Susan Faludi’s Backlash and her more recent book on men, Stiffed, as well as some of the discussion surrounding Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men and Kay Hymowitz’ Manning Up. Faludi, writing in 1991, obviously saw the 80s as a time of antifeminist backlash.
My question is how you would characterize the years since she wrote her book. A continuation of that backlash? A time of feminist resurgence, from the Riot Grrls up to Rosin’s predicted End of Men? A mixed period of progress and regression?
I’m wondering both what your general assessment of the situation is, and also what specific evidence you have — either hard data or personal experience — that underlies your overall view. This could be anything from data on employment segregation or the prevalence of rape to your sense of how media representations of women and men have or haven’t changed, or even how people you know have changed the ways they talk about gender. What do you think are the significant data points to look at?
The question isn’t just what has changed for women but what has changed for men as well — with my underlying question being: what if anything in the real world has changed that might be making the angry men we talk about here so angry? I think we can agree that most of their own explanations are bullshit, but could there be a grain of truth to any of them? Or something that they don’t see that’s far more compelling?
In the interest of spurring discussion and providing some data to work with, here are a bunch of articles responding to (or at least vaguely related to the issues raised in) Rosin’s End of Men, including a link to her original Atlantic article. In addition, here are some posts by sociologist Philip Cohen challenging many of Rosin’s claims, as well as more general posts of his on gender inequality. (Feel free to completely ignore any or all of these; I just found them useful resources.)
HAHAHAHAHA
You know we can read what you just wrote, right?
And you know words have meaning, right?
PS: “Axiomatic”? In a pig’s eye
The two-dot ellipsis strikes again!
If you want to talk to yourself, get a livejournal, or better yet, a paper journal. Then you’ll never have to worry about other people randomly reading it. But if you post your random personal thoughts in the midst of an ongoing discussion, there’s a very real danger that they might be–*gasp!*–discussed.
@Howard Bannister Feminism & Academia isn’t the problem Nihilism is. Feminism & Academia are ineffective in solving male nihilism. That’s My point in a nutshell. Btw you’bang that Ayn Rand chick yet or What?
If those ideals you came up with give you a sense of purpose and pride, then that’s great. When they appeal to women or other marginalized groups, that isn’t because of post modernism, though. It just means that you’re coming up with a list of heroic ideals that appeal to more people than just straight white men.
By the way, I hear post modernism referenced all the time in regards to feminism and I still don’t get what it is. I’ll read descriptions of what it’s supposed to mean and my brain will freeze with boredom from all of the academic buzz words. But I digress, sorry.
Sorry feminism’s not dropping everything to tend to your nihilistic boo-boo, Budmin.
Wait, I’m not. Go whine somewhere else.
Are you not reading my posts? Tell me one thing wrong with my nihilism. Seriously. Why does it need solving?
What the hell??
Oh, wait, I see. I mentioned that I don’t think there is actually any point to life except what we find in it, that there’s no morality that’s objective, except that which we decide has meaning and agree to.
And somehow this = Objectivism?
For the record, Objectivism posits the opposite. Do read a book.
“A man is a hero”
What, all 3.5 billion of them? I don’t think you quite understand what the word “hero” means.
The trouble is that what he gets purpose and pride from setting himself up as better than other people by attributing to himself heroic qualities that he denies to other people. He can’t think of himself as valuable except by thinking of other people as less valuable.
In other news, feminism=postmodernism=objectivism. I think adherents of all three philosophies are likely to be equally surprised. Anyone else reminded of that Worldview Weekend quiz that rates you on a scale from Christian to Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist?
Oh, YES. That one was SUPER-DUPER fun! 😀 😀 😀
Is what’s Budmin’s trying to say that this is a problem or a good thing?
Because this often stems from sexism.
MRAs would have you believe that both of these are different sides on the same sexism coin*, but they ignore reality to do that. If society tells you that a true man is a hero, and he succeeds in being a hero, he has gained something and can look out for himself. if society tells you that a true woman is not a hero, she cannot do anything to accomplish this except rely on other people to not put her in a position where she needs to be a hero.
If a man is expected to provide for his family and he gets a job that can pay, he can provide for his family. If the job is bad for him, he can find another job. If his wife is abusive to him, he has financial resources to leave her (though he would be faced with stigma for “letting” a woman abuse him b/c men are supposed to be strong)
If a woman is expected to be nice to her man in response for him providing for her, she has no control over how to leave if things go bad. She doesn’t have financial resources, and often times communities support an abusive man rather than an abused woman.
MRAs think that these are the same in terms of sexism, but the men are pressured by holding up “powerful” as the ideal. The women are pressured by holding up “powerless” as the ideal
While society may pressure men to be powerful, they have much more of an opportunity to change things because they are pressured to be powerful. A man who succeeds in the gender-essentialist view of the world will wind up in a position of power and therefore have power over his life; a woman who succeeds in the gender-essentialist view of the world ends up in a position of submission, and therefore does not have power of her life as much.
*analogy fail FTW!
And… i read through all this assuming Budmin thought those were bad things. *facepalm* Newsflash, Budmin, not all men want to be heroes or providers. My brother just wants to grow up and design awesome computer programs, okay? Don’t try to infect him or people like him with your toxic masculinity bs.
Arg, my dad lent me some of his church newspaper, and they keep calling the church “patriarchal” like it’s a good thing. I want to say “NOOOO No it’s not!”
WTF is male nihilism?
@cassadrasayss, I use the term “Hero” to shame myself and only myself. If I am doing something criminal then i’m not being a Man according to my own standards. One mo’ this is an internal dialog.
@Fade you’re the one setting up the dialect. If I didnt say anthing about womem please don’t attribute quotes to me that I never said. Thank x
@Fade: No, that was my mistake. He’s PRESCRIBING those as his cure–with all the baggage they come with.
I’ll post something about nihilism. It’s longer.
Dumbass. Everything you say has consequences for women; your refusal to see how you deny them agency doesn’t undo it.
I am curious about the reasons why Criminal and Hero are the only available options.
(Hey, I did study psychology at one point, this could make a nice little refresher course.)
So, Nihilism, what it means, and what budmin thinks it means.
Nihilism is anytime you stop and ask the question, so what matters? And why does it matter? And does it maybe not matter at all?
Take morality. (moral relativism) Is there an OBJECTIVE case that can be made for right and wrong? (why, hello, objectivism!)
I don’t think so any more.
That is, there’s nothing outside of humanity that sets down a rule, a Thou Shalt Not Kill. There’s no higher power defining rules.
There’s just us. Here. With each other.
Does that mean anything goes?
Let’s not be silly, now! Lots of things matter! If all we have is us, here, with each other, then nothing matters except us, except each other.
But to him, it’s all ‘if I can’t be the hero, then I have to be the villain.’
Black and white morality. If there’s no externally derived rules, no OBJECTIVE reason not to hurt other people, then he feels free to hurt other people. “…It’s either this or The Joker or Fight Club’s Tyler Durden…”
If he can’t define himself by hypermasculinity, then he’s going to define himself by hypermasculinity in a totally different way!! (oh, the circles hurt my head…)
Does that make sense?
Dammit, there was room for a cheap shot in there, replacting the second use of OBJECTIVE with AXIOMATIC.
Oh, well.
Brz:
Huh, whaddya know. Never noticed that tag. My mistake.
… of course, in your haste to prove me wrong about feminist websites using the word “creepy,” you also inadvertently demonstrated that feminist websites apparently use the word “creepy” to refer to people who blame kidnappings and rape on the victims of kidnapping and rape, which completely puts the lie to your whinging about how feminists are big meanies who call perfectly decent men “creepy” just to shame them. Whoops!
(Also I would posit that Manboobz, given it’s particular focus and mission statement, is more likely to use the word than other sites focused on feminism, both as a reaction to MRAs complaining about it and because it’s more likely to be apt, but I don’t have actual proof for that.)
Budmin:
hahahahahahahahaha this is the funniest fucking thing
like seriously
I can’t decide what tickles me more: That you believe the only alternative to an antiquated patriarchal view of gender roles and norms is cartoonish supervillainy or that your cultural touchstone for post-modernism is apparently the Joker.
That man must be busy.
I’m imagining a man getting stuck indefinitely against some rather minor obstacle (eg, not having the right paperwork to register for his college classes) because of his need to solve problems himself and not ask for help, even if the obvious, quick solution is to ask a potentially-female person whose job it is to help people with those sorts of problems (eg, a registrar).
I assumed you were talking about toxic masculinity, which usually fits those narratives. I said at the bottom I did not read that you set that up as moral code for yourself, which is kind of widgy. What does hero mean to you? Is it something you can do yourself, or does it rely on others?
@HowardBann1ster
it sort of makes sense. I mean, you explained it well, but the “if I can’t be the hero, I have to be the villain” thing doesn’t make sense. XD Not like, I don’t get what it means, I just don’t get black-and-white morality so much.
and… i don’t even know if that made sense. 😛
Technically a lack of belief in a morality-defining higher power or external force doesn’t imply moral nihilism. It might imply that moral realism is wrong, although some people argue even that point, but there are positions between those two.
(Although the distinction between moral nihilism with an acknowledgement that we all need to get along and moral constructivism is entirely academic, so this is really just pedantry on my part. MY DEGREE WILL BE GOOD FOR SOMETHING, DAMNIT!)
…It’s either this or The Joker or Fight Club’s Tyler Durden…
So you can be fictional or… imaginary. Let me know how that life plan works out for ya.
A llama is a hero.
A llama solves problems.
A llama asks for help last *if ever.
A llama must protect & provide for those zie loves.
A llama must create value before zie is to be considered valuable by the community.
It almost works.
The value the llama creates for the community lies in its cuteness factor
….
animals have it easy