Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiruin]

This is an interesting post on one psychological interpretation of the Not All Men thing.

Well that just hit home too deeply.

 

I don't like how it generalizes [some] reactions though. If someone would complain to me that 'I'm not like x', I'd question first why s/he's assuming such.

Note, but it's clearly she. She mentions her husband a few times, goes out of her way to say her *male* friend, and it's written with a notable female-perspective time vibe. Plus "You guys" when referring to men.

Err, I meant that one part.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

III) But when the person you go to tell things is the person who just told you things….

The problem I am seeing here- the place where this is unraveling- is that for men who are *hearing* about the traumatic experiences of women, and experiencing secondary traumatization over it, where do they go with those feelings?  Who do they talk about their own (totally valid!) emotional reactions to feeling overwhelmed with the things that the women they care about- or just women in general- have to deal with?

Because if the answer is women, things go downhill.

I see the whole #NotAllMen  http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument// #YesAllWomen https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllWomen?src=hash as being basically a conversation that plays out this way:

Woman to man:  Here is my experience!

Man: *Listening*

Man (internal dialogue): Holy shit, that is really awful and I feel really bad about it.  I need to go talk to someone about this.  I’ll go to the person that I usually go to to share intimate/emotional aspects of myself.

Man to woman: Hearing this makes me feel really bad!  And now I’m worried about how you think of me!  #NotAllMen are like that! (Importantly, I’m not!)

Woman (internal dialogue): Wow, I just shared a part of myself and my experience and now this guy expects me to help him feel better about the experience of listening to me?  And also seems to be devaluing the integrity of what I’m telling him?

Woman to man: Fuck off.  Seriously. For Real. #YesAllWomen.

Emphasis, orange portion.
Assumptions, leading to that conclusion. First orange part is stated like its a fact. A 100% fact. The rest...I don't even know why that was assumed.
Back to the first orange part: Which is false. It assumes or predicts why things go downhill hence why it does go downhill. Is it ever stated why? No. The following gives a declarative example but does not get to specifics on why. It's like how one easily generalizes a problem; I say this from any perspective in how it happens. Meaning: Jumping to conclusions.

What I see there is one just worried that he would be mistaken and misinterpreted thoroughly due to...well, being similar in physical characteristics [male]. :v
So why would I even assume that and/or not talk about it? It's not like everyone of the same gender holds the same [negative] values, or react in a [negative] way.

It missed the 'why' portion.

What I see is generalization, though...and connecting it to said killing that had occurred [which I guess is the theme on how she wrote it given the connections], the killer himself generalized the people...and brooded on it as a world-view fact. Maybe the generalization there is strong, or the stereotype is...
Whatever it is, there is that fear that such attitudes are really pervasive.
^{In which a random thought here says 'wow, I'm glad we're not like that here', wherein 'we' pertains to the general people and not one gender in specific.}

[palsch]

She has written a follow-up. I thought most of that was obvious from context, but guess not...

Tiruin, the rest of the article is the 'why'. Yes it is talking about a subset of men (a large subset I feel) who the generalisations apply to, but it's not hard in the slightest to see the reasoning if you just read through the full article. She provided a rather complete argument backing up those orange parts.

[Tiruin]

Oooooh yeah .__.
Missed those parts...well, I did read them but looking back to see the edit...it didn't click back there. Guess I was too focused on the detrimental part. Thanks.
Also sorry for that.

[Neonivek]

You suggest that men who need to process their emotions around all of this do so with other men.  Do you know how hard that is?

Really article creator... really? People honestly asked that?

Where are these men?

I have a hard time with your assertion that “women aren’t magic”.  I get you ladies aren’t literally made of stardust and tinkerbells, but from a guy’s perspective, women really are kind of magic, and I’m kind of uncomfortable with you denying that.

This was the number one criticism that I got, both from anonymous people and from men in my life!

Apparently they exist...

I still somehow want to see the homework done on this one... because I am on the path to misanthrope if it is true. But I somehow assume that there is some fudging of details.

[Ogdibus]

They make up a significant portion of the men that I've met.  It's very pronounced only in a few, however.  I'm pretty sure it's a cultural thing, that's been getting reduced by feminism over the past fifty years.  It seems to affect young and self centered men much more noticeably.  I'm sure that having several relationships with women that last more than a year each, easily dispels this for many men, too.

[Neonivek]

It seems to affect young and self centered men much more noticeably

Remember these are men who feel like they CANNOT communicate with other men, and that not only is it much easier to talk to women but that they have magical powers that make them feel better.

It doesn't seem like a "self-centered" trait.

"They make up a significant portion of the men that I've met."

What kind of men do you tend to meet?

[Dutchling]

That women has weird friends.

edit: That or she writes really well from someone attending high school

[Tiruin]

It seems to affect young and self centered men much more noticeably

Remember these are men who feel like they CANNOT communicate with other men, and that not only is it much easier to talk to women but that they have magical powers that make them feel better.

It doesn't seem like a "self-centered" trait.

"They make up a significant portion of the men that I've met."

What kind of men do you tend to meet?

I...think you're misinterpreting that a bit.
Regarding the context of that one question--I believe its the thing about people speaking about their feelings openly towards others. Probably either the fear or...'awkwardness(?)' of when men speak to each other? Not that weird here but...

    You suggest that men who need to process their emotions around all of this do so with other men.  Do you know how hard that is?

Though the questioner never explained how hard it is. :v

[Angle]

I can testify to not being able to really trust or confide in other men. It's just not something our culture really allows. And yes, it does tend to place an unfair burden on women.

[Tiruin]

I can testify to not being able to really trust or confide in other men. It's just not something our culture really allows. And yes, it does tend to place an unfair burden on women.

...Our culture or local culture?

[Angle]

Well, the culture I've experienced here in America, which I don't think is much different from the rest of America.

[Vector]

"Women are magic" = the manic pixie dream girl thing, basically, which has gotten really popular and overt in recent years. The one Zane Grey western I read similarly had "the kiss of a good woman" insta-altering a bad man's moral alignment ._.

Remember that whole "women want bad boys" stereotype? The one that generated the "nice guy" thing that's plaguing us right now? It relies on the idea: "A good woman will change her man." This also ties into that point of view where a woman who can't change her partner, who is instead victimized by him, must have done something wrong.

Because if she were good, she would be magic.

And remember the whole celibacy = purity = closeness to god thing? Another element of why female virginity = moral alignment = magic.

The culture is seriously steeped in a lot of bullshit on the topic of women's magical social skills, though I feel that few people articulate it clearly.

[Neonivek]

A lot of people believe the "Nice Guy" or the "Sensitive Guy" is mostly a backlash from the ultra-macho period starting around the 50s that lasted until the 90s.

Though what I am saying is not really to contradict you Vector so much as saying that the "Positive traits" shift around a lot.

Heck it wasn't too long ago that "Geek-lite" was popular. (I say Geek-lite... because they refer to nerds and geeks as the inspiration... but with none of the negative connotations that come with it. They pretty much want a non-dumb person who wears fashionable smarty wear).

But I think what overall was harmful, because Geek-Lite was more of a trend and Nice-Guy was dictated, is when "The kind of guy that is popular right now is this" becomes "This is what guys should be" and starts to be taught in schools, for example (It was an issue for a short while, but our education system was more then competent enough to adjust within like... a YEAR)

the whole celibacy = purity = closeness to god thing?

Remember? It is still going on today in force. People are still trying to marry the ideas of classical purity with secular morality.

It is why, depending on the group, is sexual liberation either a negative or a positive as well as what forms count or not.

Though for men where that issue affects them is... rather complicated. As they have both a purity and counter-purity ("You better be having sex") culture going on for them at once, but a more strong counter-purity culture. Sex is somehow equated to a problem solver and lack of sex is seen as a problem.

So for men it is often more pressure to try to conform to a culture that asks them to have more sex. (but honestly, I think after you grow up... like after highschool... it stops mattering... but that isn't supported by anything but my own observations. It is why many people believe "The 40 year old Virgin" is actually a parody of this attitude)

Mind you it is an interesting subject... I should explore it more, but the last time I looked into this subject it was more about how men are taught to be controlling and abusive by being forced to play into macho stereotypes and not to allow any vulnerability thus creating a caustic lifestyle... so it is rarely a happy subject and rarely spoken in observational tones. (It was an interesting video for something in the 90s.)

---

Mind you right now I think the "Guy that is in" is the: "Self-made man who is distant, semi-abusive, and commanding who could have anyone but choses you, who you can totally change to be a more caring individual"... but that is just in Romance Novels.

I HONESTLY want to know why "Fixer uppers" are so dang popular in Romance...

I wouldn't know what the "Guy that guys want" but... honestly... it is probably around the same thing with less "Change them" in there. Which I guess gives the guy on guy a "Caretaker" sort of role oddly enough... but I don't read gay romance so I have no idea... this is pure biased assumption based on misanthrope.

[Angle]

There's a mens purity culture? That's news to me. I never saw any sign of such a thing.

[Frumple]

Eh, minor but existent. I tend to hear older men advising younger to stay away from the women (in the sense of sex and intimate relationships in general, mind you). This is coupled with a complete disbelief that they will and, from everything I've seen, a notable belief that something is wrong when they actually do.

It just tends to be the same men, giving the same sort of advice, in the same sort of tone, as "stay away from booze", as they drink and indulge in adultery and whatnot. As Neo notes, the counter-purity culture is considerably stronger.