Some people, regardless of gender, highly value competence. Some don't. Different people, different values. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with people who value that, nor with those who don't value it.
Exactly, expecially the "regardless of gender" part. This seems much more dependent on type than gender.
I don't think it's possible anymore, [MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION]. To respond to [MENTION=9627]Xann[/MENTION], the idea of the disposable man predates feminism and womens' rights movements. Working class men have been regarded as disposable by both men and women for centuries, and perhaps since hunter-gatherer society. Where MRAs go wrong in this regard is in framing their movement as a response to the most toxic branches of feminist thought, rather than as a response to modes of thinking that predate feminism as a movement. Really, men's rights and women's rights should be sibling movements in a greater move toward an egalitarian society.
The idea of the disposable man has been around at least as long as the idea of "women and children first".
I think men kill themselves because they perceive themselves as incompetent in various roles--those roles vary given the circumstance. It has nothing to do with men somehow being robbed of their "traditional" roles due to the advent of gender equality. Men have either been cast aside or cast themselves aside when they have failed to meet various expectations in a variety of roles throughout history--they've always been the more disposable gender, due to nauture and survival requirements.
Traditional expectations placed on men to provide and to show no weakness seem much more likely to create the kind of stress that leads to suicide than anything produced by the forces seeking to loosen gender expectations. Part of the movement to eliminate sexism includes giving men "permission" to acknowledge and express their feelings, and to accept help and support from others. The more men can become comfortable doing this, the fewer of them will probably resort to suicide.
For a moment, set aside your ideology and imagine a discussion among mostly women about an issue that affects women, then have some guy drop a masculinist article using toxic femininity in the article title.
FWIW, I think traditional notions of femininity are as toxic as traditional notions of masculinity. Anything that expects a human to go through life with one hand tied behind his/her back, or trying to be something he/she is not is toxic in my book.
Why can't we look at toxic forms of masculine and feminine expression as something that is intrinsic in society in general and not some construct that has been forced on us by a patriarchal board of overlords, as though they got together and devised this as some evil plan to keep working class men and women down. I don't think it's quite that simple, and that's where feminists lose me. I think it's something that has been and is continually collectively perpetuated by the majority of both men and women as "social norms." Blaming patriarchy or matriarchy or some other sinister bogeyman is counterproductive.
The fact that it is perpetuated by both men and women (and it is) does not make it any less patriarchy. Men have traditionally held most/all of the positions of power, and women have been complicit in their doing so. Granted, the cost for objecting has at times been high, but as I often hear, freedom isn't free.
Yeah, I don't think there's a cause-effect between women's rights movements and suicide, per se. The women's right movement has been active for a long time. The recent increase in suicide is localized in the last decade or so.
If there really has been an increase within the past decade, I wonder whether it has anything to do with the economic downturn. I have read that more men lost their jobs during that time than women, leaving more families to rely on wives' earnings. If that indeed hits men so hard, perhaps more suicide is the result.
But I think it's more than just blue collar jobs, but all sorts of valid expressions of masculinity that are negated by certain flavors of feminist activism. As Christina Hoff Summers puts it, we don't let boys BE BOYS. That means actually letting them run around and do risky things and playing in dirt and being rambunctious. And later on it means being responsible, where we make it clear that playing is fine, but you need to do something productive and not only be able to take care of yourself, but take care of other people.
We don't let kids in general run around and do risky things any more, partly because society has become so litigious. We used to tell girls NOT to run around, be rambunctious, or get dirty because it "isn't ladylike". I don't see as much of that any more at least. Related to that, we also don't encourage responsibility in young people enough (or expect it as much in grownups any longer). We try to keep kids kids far too long rather than encouraging them to take on responsibility, try, fail, learn, and try again. I really don't see any gender distinction here. Sure - we need to encourage boys to be responsible and take care of others, but we need to encourage it in girls as well. Irresponsibility and disregard for others is incompatible with productive adulthood. For that matter, neither boys nor girls are getting enough free time, play time, outdoor time, exercise, etc.
Beyond that, it matters how much actual family the man has. After a divorce, a man has just LOST his family. I'm sorry, but no amount of "teaching" how to deal with feelings and sadness will get you through that. Friends will get you through that. Other family members will get you through that.
This only works if the man reaches out to friends and family. If he is too ashamed to do so because he feels he has been a failure, and that reaching out to others will only confirm that, he won't get that support. We don't need to teach men "to learn to deal with emotions lke women" (which by the way is one heck of a generalization, as all women don't deal with emotions the same), we just need to teach them that they do in fact need to deal with them, there is no shame in it, and they don't have to do it alone.
I thought Patriarchy, in its basic essence, was a society favoring men and giving preference to traditionally male traits and qualities over those traditionally considered feminine. I don't believe we're living in that right now. If we were, there is no way our school system would be so unbalanced.
I don't think traditionally male and female traits actually align that well with actual differences between men and women. It seems almost that many of the healthier, more "adult" traits have come to be associated with men, and the less healthy, more childlike traits with women. Wishful thinking? Self-fulfilling prophecy?
So it isn't men need to be more like women and vice versa. It is breaking those molds all together. Seeing each other as who we are rather than some social ideal we should live up to. It doesn't mean change yourself but rather change your outlook.
Until we have a society completely free of external constraints and expectations linked to sex, we cannot be certain that an individual's choices are truly free, based only on his/her actual preferences and abilities. That would be my ideal. Of course such a society will be long in coming, if it ever does.
I think that truism got warped over time into this sort of...general abhorrence of things that one would ascribe to the archetypically feminine. Being nurturing, emotional, receptive, delicate were seen as things we should purge ourselves of--like Amazons lopping off their right breast to better fire an arrow--to make way towards that glass ceiling. And I think there are still elements of that attitude even within contemporary feminist discourse. Giving into these those impulses will only hold us back.
It depends on which feminine archetype you reference. Some include traits like being dependent, compliant, submissive, ornamental, flighty/more prone to hysteria, etc. I find it hard to see any of these as compatible with being a fully functional and responsible adult. See my speculation above about how traits were assigned to the masculine vs. feminine bin.
I agree with you that it's a nice ideal, but I don't think it will ever be compatible with the reality of sexual polarity. And I do think it goes beyond nurture and social-conditioning. Being fickle and indecisive (exploring other possibilities as you say) is often considered a feminine trait. Men are valued for being confident, strong and decisive. It's not like some kind of underground Fight Club where men have gathered together to establish universal rules; it's just the way it is. Women are biologically attracted to what they are attracted to, and generally speaking, that's summed up in the concept of "masculinity." There's really no getting around that. Guys who are naturally sensitive, cautious or indecisive have a higher mountain to climb, much the way physically unattractive women are generally not as successful at attracting men. Life isn't fair.
No, generally women are attracted to men. Many may be "masculine" (by which definition?), others not so much. Sexual polarity is not the same as sex-linked gender roles.
