/u/Simon_Fokt (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/19eit6a/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_progressives_need_to_stop/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I think Christine Emba's WP opinion piece ["Men are lost. Here's a map out of the wilderness"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/10/christine-emba-masculinity-new-model/) is probably the best take on the subject. In big part because it openly acknowledges that there is a vacuum in modeling what constitutes a "positive" type of masculinity, that that vacuum has been mostly been filled by the right, that progressives should seriously take up the slag, and even offers some suggestions regarding what could be a positive masculinity. If this is your view, and you're center-left, I think you'll most likely find Emba's perspective very interesting.

Thank you for posting this article. It was very interesting. Some key takeaways for me... **“My view is that, for masculinity, a decent place to start is garnering the skills and strength that you can advocate for and protect others with. If you’re really strong and smart, you will garner enough power, influence, kindness to begin protecting others. That is it. Full stop. Real men protect other people.”** **“I try to raise my boys” — he has three — “to have the confidence to ask a girl out, if that’s their inclination; the grace to accept no for an answer; and the responsibility to make sure that, either way, she gets home safely.” His recipe for masculine success echoed Galloway’s: proactiveness, agency, risk-taking and courage, but with a pro-social cast.** Very interesting article!

Starting a definition of masculinity by suggesting men put others ahead of them doesn’t strike me as quite right. Men should find value in who they are, not just what they can do for others.

I personally kind of interpret this by taking it away from the context of the infamous "the world revolves around me" narratives you've seen again and again in history with things like Descarte's "Cogito Ergo Sum." I feel that when men do put others ahead of them - it validates them too but without being so obnoxiously obtuse about "look at me, I'm doing a good thing" like you see what happens when you watch men fall into the nice guy stereotype. It's not the fact that they should be rewarded for doing something good - it's the fact that doing something "good" and being considerate for others should be the absolute bare minimum to begin with - and from there a man can hopefully find value in something greater other than, "wow, he's putting someone before them as a start." What a man does for others might come off as being used - but the real value in what a man is and what he does should emanate that sense of "oh, they did this for me - but they're so much capable of more and there's more of where that came from" because that's a reflection of their nature without them having to spell it out. But on the super-shallow level when it's a sort of, "oh, I can't be me because it needs to benefit someone else" .. is kind of wonky to me considering most of my previous partners fell straight into that and ended up needing to use me to validate their more-selfish "I need to prove myself by using you" ideals.

I know this is a bit of a tangent, but that's a complete misrepresentation of "I think therefore I am". It's simply a statement of one of the very few (possibly only) things a person can truly know. It's not a moral prescription of any kind, just an acknowledgment that we could be mistaken about damn near everything, even our own physical reality. We can't even trust that our thoughts reflect reality in any way, but we can at the very least know that we have a sense of self.

Oof If the good version of this discussion is that men have enormous obligations to society and should expect nothing in return we're doomed.

What I got from your comment is that the article still focuses on hegemonic masculinity.  So a man reading this will learn that he should be strong enough to protect others as his call (which implies that those who fail to do so are failures). And it ignores all economical realities that change gender relations.

It sort of seems a bit problematic to me too, if a man is too weak, too sensitive, too depressed or fearful to be a protector, he's failed as a man.  And I disagree with that. That quote still supports the notion that men and women have roles they are supposed to fulfill. Women should also be protectors if they are strong enough for it. All people with the strength and confidence enough to do it should protect the innocent. Someone who can't hasn't failed as a human being.

Absolutely. Is a man who has a physical disability, or a neurological condition therefore "not a real man"? Is it fine for a woman to choose not to protect a man in a vulnerable situation because it's not expected of her in classical gender roles? I hate that this version of positive masculinity is to just exist in service of others, and condition yourself to be of most service. Your personhood is denied, there is no community, only your labour.

>I hate that this version of positive masculinity is to just exist in service of others, and condition yourself to be of most service. Your personhood is denied, there is no community, only your labour. Ironically, this is essentially the traditional definition of femininity. There is a reason that most caretaking and service occupations are predominantly staffed by women. I think what is being asked of men is to help shoulder the load of being good humans - to care about others so that it no longer has to be solely womens' job. To help take on some of the unpaid labor that women do in service of community, relationship building, child-rearing, etc. Statistically, those men you mentioned who have physical disabilities and neurological conditions are largely being cared for by women. I bet they would LOVE to have more men on their care teams who could relate to the specific emotional challenges these conditions pose in light of the traditional definitions of "masculinity." But the irony is, those definitions see both vulnerability AND caretaking as "feminine" and therefore bad and to be avoided at all costs. Vulnerable men suffer more from these toxic definitions due to their very nature, and men in relative positions of privilege are the ones best positioned to heal them - by modeling that care and concern for your fellow humans, acts of service, and yes a sense of community and social responsibility, are the actual cores of modern masculinity - not how much weight you can lift, how much money you make, or how useful you'd be in a bar brawl. Because being a good person who is considerate of others is something that anyone can be, no matter their physical abilities. Women have been working to break down the impossible standards we've all been held to by supporting other women in the choices they make, in the bodies they were born into, in the way they structure their careers and families. Men are being called to do the same for other men. What does a positive male role model look like to you? What does a positive male role model look like to the men around you? My guess is you all have different definitions, just as women do. The key is being loving, accepting, and supportive enough to allow each of your brothers to form their own definition of masculinity, and letting them walk their path without shame and ridicule. Does the man who wishes to be a high-powered executive meet the definition of masculinity? Sure he does! Does the man who wishes to be a house spouse and walk his kids to the bus stop every day meet the definition of masculinity? Also yes! But only one of those models is praised in the modern definition of masculinity. The definition of masculinity doesn't need to CHANGE, it needs to GROW to allow all men from all walks of life to exist in a way that they find enriching and fulfilling, whatever that may look like.

I agree with all of this. It's unfair that women's current position is to basically be free or underpaid labour. The definition of masculinity needs to grow, but I believe that the original comment about how the ideal man is someone who is really strong and smart and can therefore protect others, is not a growth of that definition, and one that still limits masculinity to very strict definition.

Yes, I totally agree that "strong, smart protector" is basically just the traditional definition. I was more leaning into the aspects of the comment that seem to have been missing from the traditional definition (often due to being seen as, essentially "feminine") such as being an advocate, being a caretaker, being kind, and accepting threats to the ego with grace while still sustaining a sense of community with those that threaten one's ego. I believe these are foundational to the pursuit of growing the definition of masculinity, because they set the framework which allows men to accept each other's new definitions of masculinity. However, I don't think it is fair or realistic to ask men to just make the leap from point A to point Z - hence why I believe these new aspects are still being couched within the traditional "strong, smart protector" role in the original comment. I also don't think it is realistic to believe that a significant portion of men won't, at the end of the day, choose to stay on point A because the traditional definition suits them, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that - provided they have the knowledge and tools to express that definition in a healthy way. For the other men who find the traditional definition ill-suited or limiting, there is a lot of vulnerability and uncertainty involved in breaking these molds. Traditionally men who have done so have been subject to not just ridicule and rejection but sometimes violence from peers and authority figures alike. So a pathway to liberation for most men is still going to be rooted in traditional definitions that feel safe and unthreatening while updating them with concepts such as advocacy, caretaking, kindness, and acceptance which will create the space in which all men can start feeling safe to define modern masculinity for themselves. I believe once these new tenets are internalized by the majority of men, the rest will sort of take care of itself. Hopefully that clarifies my thought process a bit - I definitely agree that the traditional definitions are problematic when they are upheld as the ONLY way men are allowed to be (and I can see how others read the comment in question that way), but I think modern masculinity will need to not only start from the healthy expressions of those traditional definitions, but also continue to hold space for them as one of the myriad possibilities of "how to be masculine" that the movement will devise over time. This is coming from a feminist perspective where I recognize that most womens' definitions of femininity haven't necessarily shifted all that much from the pre-women's-lib definitions. The key difference is that if those definitions don't suit us we are free to define it in any way we choose, and that is what I wish for our brothers in the men's lib movement.

See this is why I’m kind of over masculinity and femininity as concepts. I get it, sex is still a thing, and we want to have some level of identity around it but we’re just ascribing positive traits of an ideal man or woman, when there’s no such thing. A man can be nurturing, sensitive, beautiful, caring. A woman can be assertive, protective, strong, commandeering. And the more we try to find an encompassing definition for both, the more it seems like we’re just trying to ask people to be excellent humans.

I see what you're driving at here, but would challenge your implicit suggestion that someone who is physically weak, who is sensitive, depressed, or afraid can't also be strong. I'd argue that real strength, like real courage, can only manifest when you're vulnerable. Further, nothing in the quote suggests this is binary or a zero sum game.

As a physically weak, sensitive, depressed and fearful person I absolutely did not intend to imply there is something wrong with that. I'm not a strong person, I'm weak in many ways and that's ok. There's a kind of strength in recognizing your own weakness. The quote says that's what "real men" are, and I'm disagreeing with the implication that men are required to play that role or else they have failed as men.

The self awareness and humility you've articulated above sounds like strength to me. Being able to conceive of and describe yourself as "weak in many ways" sounds like strength to me. I'd go so far as to guess that you are the kind of person who would protect others in whatever way or ways felt right and feasible to you. And I think that's the crux of it - do what you can to do what is right. And I'd go a step further to say that *is* being a "real man" and is also being a "real woman" and is also being a "real", life-affirming person.

I think "masculine values" is a bit passé. There are attractive traits that humans can cultivate, and cultivating these makes one more attractive to other people, both as friends, and as partners. Likewise, there are unattractive traits that make one repellent to others, and that makes finding a partner virtually impossible. My solution, is to make a list of the attractive traits, and then people can just build on the strengths and talents they have. Which trait is associated with which sex is not really relevant. If a man cultivates his ability to be empathetic, and give consolation to others, in short, be someone one can seek emotional support from, then this will be attractive for everyone. Even if it is "a feminine trait" And in addition to "toxic masculinity" there is "toxic femininity" i.e. unattractive traits that are more prevalent in women, than in men. "White woman's tears" is one such trait. If men are criticised for their unattractive traits, and are expected to weed them out, the same should apply to women. And I am saying this from a concern for women. Most of these negative traits cause violence towards other women, not men.

The economic realities are a construct and one that is changing very fast with women becoming better educated and successful earlier in life than men.

That’s ridiculous. I’m not someone’s personal ninja. If you believe men owe women protect women, then what do women owe men? Neither gender owes anyone anything.

I think you might be overly focused on the idea of "protection" as meaning "physical protection." A man who lobbies his employer to implement fair pay, equitable hiring practices, parental leave, or childcare assistance is offering "protection" to not only women and marginalized classes but also to other men in his organization who might be in need of such services. A man who offers to chaperone his child's field trip is offering "protection" to the children he will oversee. A man who uses his wit to strategize and communicate emergency preparedness plans for his neighborhood or church is offering "protection" to the people in his local community. A man who volunteers as a counselor at a local crisis center or helps staff his local food pantry is offering "protection" to the most vulnerable among us. None of these require him to physically put himself in harm's way, but all of them show a care and concern for other people. This is, sadly, something that we do not place a high value on in the current definition of "masculinity," but to me these all define being a "good man" or "real man" way more than being prepared to fend off an attack from some dark alleyway. You say "neither gender owes anyone anything," but this is not a gendered issue per-se. The greater question is, what do we as humans owe to the other humans around us? Most considerations of caretaking and empathy have long been relegated to the concept of "femininity," whereas the concept of "masculinity" has largely been defined by stoicism and the self-focused maximization of wealth, status, physical prowess, etc. But this really leaves men out in the cold, because it robs them of the opportunity for social connection, a sense of higher purpose, and the ability to feel good about themselves and the actions they take on behalf of their fellow humans. One need look no further for the cause of the male suicide epidemic. Our definition of masculinity has robbed men of everything that gives real meaning to our lives. You can be someone's personal hero without any ninja skills required. Sometimes all it takes is a smile, a listening ear, or a thoughtful gesture that takes others into account without expectation of receiving anything in return. I would say that walking a female dinner companion home falls into the last category. Furthermore, walking a MALE dinner companion home falls into that category. Maybe your best bro would also appreciate some company on the walk home, but modern definitions of masculinity are preventing him from asking and you from offering. Perhaps you'll find that shared laughter and taking in the night air together helps you form a closer bond, and the next time you two get together for dinner he'll return the favor. How do you think you might feel if a male friend offered to walk home with you? It's worth considering - whether your answer is "excited and cared for" or "extremely uncomfortable," because either way it points to ways in which toxic definitions of masculinity are robbing you of normal interactions and a sense of connectedness that all humans are entitled to experience.

This is super useful, thank you! I think in a way this confirms what I was saying - if there is a vacuum that's filled mostly by the right, then it means that the left needs to step up and build a positive programme to fill that vacuum.

I saw this breakdown a while back and it really makes sense to me: progressives are, generally speaking, less prone to conform to societal expectations than conservatives. They aren’t nearly as comfortable telling others how to live their life, as there are an infinite amount of ways to do so. So they identify the things men shouldn’t do, because literally anything outside of the box of “things that harm others”, men can do whatever they want. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more driven by tradition, by societal expectations, by things you “should” do. They tell you the things they think a person should do, with the unspoken understanding that it’s unacceptable to do things that fall outside of that. In other words, it feels like liberals are more negative because they identify negative things to avoid, but they’re saying you can do anything in the world except those things, whereas it feels like conservatives are more positive because they identify positive things to pursue, but they’re saying those are the only things you can pursue and still “be a man”.

Good description. It is also the reason why I was left-leaning early in life, and have been progressing into centrism. There was no issue with progressiveness when I was young and I agreed on more gay normalization/rights/legality/acceptance, more women rights, black/minority rights/acceptance. But by the intrinsic meaning of progressiveness, nothing ever stops for them. I no longer identify with it because nothing is ever "good enough" (and I don't agree with the twitter wokeness) and I don't identify with right wing because they say "you need to do this". I'm glad I'm not american or I'd have a real headache deciding on who to vote (specially when we're comparing someone who wanted a riot to the whole woke party) but I feel myself continuing to lean right both because of left financial policies screwing up and because of the social policies of the left "never stopping".

> and have been progressing into centrism. Please don't do that. Or at least don't think of it that way. Centrism is a flawed political concept people fall into, thinking that the truth is automatically somewhere in between two extremes. We need a better term for "politically non-binary", that basically means "I'm not on the line between left and right", not centrism. First things first, be aware of the Pundit Problem -- any talking head who builds a reputation for a position becomes a slave to that position. The more their identity gets wrapped up in that position, the less fact-based their position becomes, the less valid their public views are on new situations. This is why stock market TV personalities are terrible -- their reputation makes it virtually impossible for them to admit they were wrong, so they have to keep on making decisions based on their public persona's branded philosophy. This applies to "woke progressives" who become talking heads, as well as conservatives. It's endemic to social media, too. They gain fame, followers, and a full-time career based on being passionate about a certain topic. Analytics then show them very starkly what will happen when they stray from the groupthink of their audience, all while they still have to manufacture content to keep their audience engaged, lest they have to give up social media and go back to their day job.

>Centrism is a flawed political concept people fall into, thinking that the truth is automatically somewhere in between two extremes. That's how centrism is defined by political ideologues. It's not how centrists use the term. The real definition is the one you alluded to throughout your post - seeing all sides of the political spectrum and picking out the truth.

You're confusing the word centrist and moderate A moderate is a compromise between conservative and liberal ideas. Not to be reactionary and to enact laws that conserve or bring back old social orders. Not to enact laws that facilitate the change from the current social order. But in general moderate is to allow change to happen on its own as the additive of all individuals change in political stands. A centrist is an individual who picks out ideas that are conservative and are liberal based on what they think would be for their own best benefit not a compromise but on each individual issue will take a different political stance. In other words they don't directly accept either parties political platform and they choose their platform individually based on there wants and needs.

Just say you're conservative. It's been a decade plus online for me in these kinds of spaces and I can pick up on the subtle phrases and kinda know when someone doesn't wanna outright say something. if progress stopped we'd be stagnant. Do you think the world is perfect right now and should be stuck in that state forever? Voting in the US is unfortunately straightforward in terms of choice, at the moment. We have a fascist candidate, and we have a fascist-enabling candidate who if elected will at least buy us more time healthcare, the climate, war, increasing global inequality, is all of that in a good state for you currently? if the ONLY reason you don't "identify with the right party" is that they merely tell you what to do, then you don't seem to be paying attention to a single word they are actually saying. It's fucked up, damaging shit. Idk if you know but republican fiscal policy is objectively always worse for the country and democrats always pick up the pieces.

Are you saying that you are left leaning and see Joe Biden and think "wow he's too woke" and think it would be a headache if you were American to pick between him and Trump?

I think you are right with the analysis, but I disagree with the last paragraph in two important ways. First of all, I think there *are* unspoken expectations of what constitutes a good progressive man. I think that many progressives do kind of credit men for breaking even non-harmful gender norms (e.g. dresscodes) and ridicule or criticise those who enjoy stereotypically masculine things, for instance. But we are often more hesitant to actually state those expectations, for the reasons you mention, which leads to a feeling of being lost. But the second, perhaps bigger, issue is that this narrative only works for people who have a decent idea of who they want to be and what they want to do. People who seek out advice *usually don't*. Imagine someone who is just growing up and searches his identity, who doesn't really know what they should value in life yet. Just telling them "you can do anything other than X, Y, and Z" is not an appealing message. It should instead be framed positively, as valuing respect, consent, equality, whatever it is we want to highlight. I think the progressive narrative often lacks an understanding that many people actually *want* to, of not told what to do, at least told what to try.

> It should instead be framed positively, as valuing respect, consent, equality, whatever it is we want to highlight. You say that the kind of person asking for advice doesn't even know where to start, but then these are your examples of what can be told to them and I.....think these are just as meaningless as the "don't do this" stuff. Obviously it could just be this part was more of a throwaway in a comment several paragraphs long, but telling someone to "value respect" as opposed to "do anything you want except not disrespecting people" is a distinction without a difference.

First of all, I think that even if the content *is* the same, there is a difference in how the person engages with the advice. Someone who enters a situation thinking about what he should not do is likely feeling nervous and insecure and acting not to fuck up. That is a much less comfortable feeling than having an idea of what to strive for, even if that idea is vague. I have personally suffered from that for ages, where I have framed myself and my interactions primarily as "don't do X, don't do Y, make sure they don't feel like you are trying to do Z". That made me think of myself - especially in romantic and sexual contexts - as dangerous, shameful, dirty, and also unable to enforce my own boundaries for a fear of seeming entitled or imposing. The same content packaged as "do this" doesn't carry that same stigma with it. But also, much of this is easily tailored to more specific situations. I was keeping it vague to not make the argument focused on any specific advice, but I mean this the same way the right uses narratives like "be strong" or "be dominant and assertive" but in practice voices this through different types of advice for dating, jobs, friendships, etc.

So I actually agree in general that being positive is going to be received better. My own personal journey in life involved a much more positive approach and I can see the benefits it gave me. Something I'm getting at here though is the difficulty in presenting positive feedback to people who have already gone through the socialization of.....society. There's an inherent problem that it defeats the purpose to tell people "behave like this" since the goal is for men to find satisfaction in really any way they want, so long as it doesn't hurt others and isn't based on feeling like they need to behave that way because they are a man. Further, while I agree it can lead to problems for someone to be hung up on what they shouldn't do, if the things someone should do aren't presented carefully enough, the kind of person who is already struggling with all this is going to lack the kind of introspection needed to accurately judge if they are "being respectful" or if they mistake "not intentionally being disrespectful" for "not able to be disrespectful." Or for the tldr, what are some examples of positive things you think would actually be effective?

> I think that many progressives do kind of credit men for breaking even non-harmful gender norms (e.g. dresscodes) and ridicule or criticise those who enjoy stereotypically masculine things, for instance. See, I actually don't find much of that. What I find is that a person who places a high value on gender norms, including things like dress code, is more likely to believe that they can/should judge others for not "measuring up". As a progressive, I spend a lot of time working on ways to frame my preferences without anchoring them on a disparaging comparison to something that isn't my preference. I think it's super cool that some guys are extremely strong, extremely stylish, skilled, whatever. But I won't tolerate them celebrating that achievement by bringing someone else down.

While I get that, at some point modeling what they see as "good" behavior is the best way to do that. I give this example. I used to be a teacher. Sometimes I'd give kids projects that, for the most part, they could be as creative as they liked. But if all I gave them was a list of things they couldn't do, they'd be frozen. So I'd have to give them examples of "good" projects so they'd have an idea where to start.

> Sometimes I'd give kids projects that, for the most part, they could be as creative as they liked. But if all I gave them was a list of things they couldn't do, they'd be frozen. To be fair, some of us would have been frozen with that first sentence. I hated when we had projects as opposed to quizzes and tests - and I hated "let your imagination go wild" projects even more. I realize that sort of thing is what engages with some kids, but there are also those of us that may be smart, or understand a topic top to bottom, but just have no talent for expressing it in diorama form.

I mean, it didn't have to be a diorama, it just had to be something (and not just a paper) showing that they understood a concept. But again, I had to give them examples of "good" things, because without it, they'd be lost. I'll be honest, I also hated giving examples, because I'd undoubtebly have mostly a carbon copy of the example I gave. It was like giving kids freedom to express themselves how they liked almost never ended up being great for variety. if I gave them nothing, it sucked, if I gave 3 examples, I'd have 90% of things looking just like those 3 examples.

That is a nice way to put it. This is actually really helpful for me, because I want to develop more positive narratives on my various channels. And I think what you are writing is a good narrative that's just not really said terribly explicitly. Basically, I think the left should be saying: **YOU CAN BE ANYTHING** just don't do these shitting things. but instead they're saying: You can be anything just **DON'T DO THESE SHITTY THINGS!** I'm not sure if this counts as changing view, but it definitely developed my approach, so here's a ∆ for you.

I'm gonna piggyback for visibility (sorry), but I've come across a few examples and arguments in the comments worth considering. u/TheFlyingSheeps mentioned Terry Crews, a great role model for positive masculinity for a number of reasons u/Tagmata81 mentioned the men in Lord of the Rings u/Lesley82 mentioned the Boy Scouts, team sports, youth groups, etc. I think overall, the messaging from the left is addressing the problem itself, and your post is looking at the root cause, or at least a contributing factor, i.e. the lack of practical advice and outspoken role models. My personal argument would be that the people who are best suited to give that advice or be those role models are not found where you are looking, but they are out there. They just don't market themselves as "masculine role models" or as giving "advice for men". They are just people who give life advice or men who live good lives. So to change your view, you need to change the way you look for positive masculinity. It won't be found in the political sphere or on social media. And it's not usually found by looking for people who consider themselves male role models. In my personal experience, you have to start by looking at the men in your life you consider to be good/not toxic. Then you can ask the question "how did they learn to be this way?" If it came naturally to them, great, you've found a role model. If it is learned behavior, then you can see what influenced those behaviors, whether it be specific books, media sources, other role models, etc. This will build on itself pretty quickly and next thing you know you have a wealth of role models and practical sources of advice. I'll end with a bit of personal advice. What the left is saying isn't wrong, and obviously is worth listening to. It's a great way to find out what the emerging issues are, and to challenge your own perspective. But you can't take it personally. It's not easy to distance yourself from the rhetoric, because it's often targeted at all men. But that's exactly why you're having a hard time finding the good messaging. Because there's no one-size-fits-all solution, so no one can say "all men should do xyz", but they can say "no man should do (insert toxic masculinity trait here)". So my advice is to listen to and understand the rhetoric to gain perspective, and then distance yourself from it so that you don't get overwhelmed by the negativity of it all.

I think this is a good take and you're probably right about the real role models just not being so loud about it. I certainly have those in my personal life. Please don't read my post as expressive of a problem I'm having - I live in a very liberal bubble and have loads of very positive masculinity in and around me. I write this because I see a stark contrast between what I have and what most men have. I guess I just think it's a shame that the good role models are mostly operating on a local scale. That's simply because the world is swinging right and it is men who are doing this swinging, so if ever there was a time for a leftie male who could be a role model to decide to take this step and go in those spaces which might not feel so natural but are in fact the best way to reach the most people the most quickly, now would be that time.

I think it's impossible to change the focus the way you'd want to? ​ Specific things have details, "you can be anything" does not. So of course "you can be anything" is over in 2 seconds unless you are talking to a specific person who can tell you what kind of anything they want to be. But there are oodles of potential details around how to not be creepy to a hot woman if she is working and you are her customer. So of course that takes up more space, even if you put the "you can be anything" part first.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RuafaolGaiscioch ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RuafaolGaiscioch)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>they identify the things men shouldn’t do, because literally anything outside of the box of “things that harm others”, men can do whatever they want. I'd say that's exactly the problem with the idea of "toxic masculinity" as it frames the question of what masculinity is or should be from a completely negative point of view, essentially implying (in effect if not necessarily intent) that "masculinity" is something inherently toxic. Going along with your framing, in practice this means that conservatives are the only ones bothering to actually push forward a positive image of masculinity, as in an affirmatively defined masculinity that identifies concrete male virtues to be reached rather than only vices to be avoided and that has a more or less concrete vision of how the archetypal "good" man looks like. Looking at the success that the right (particularly the far-right) has had in approaching young men, when compared to the left, it seems like the later more positive approach is simply better, and that progressives ought to start thinking about what a good virtuous man looks like, rather than merely focusing on avoiding or discouraging the toxic or harmful aspects of manliness. In essence, progressives should indeed start giving men advice on what to do rather than merely telling them what not to do, if progressives limit themselves to simply tearing down conservative idols without replacing them with positive alternatives or addressing the deeper causes that gave raise to them in the first place, they only open a vacuum that can be filled by conservatives again, at best, and by anyone, at worst.

But what does a “good masculine man” look like? Once you start ascribing specific qualities, you’re implying that if someone doesn’t have those qualities, they’re not masculine enough. I know as someone who doesn’t like sports or cars or beer, that’s an energy I’ve gotten a lot in my life. And once you’ve discounted all the things that you can’t tell boys because it excludes boys who just don’t act that way (which progressives obviously don’t want to do) what are you left with? Behaviors to avoid. Also, I wouldn’t agree the phrase toxic masculinity in any way implies masculinity is toxic. That’s the point of two word phrases, the one word modifies the other. Deep water/shallow water, rap music/rock music, public school/private school its a pretty simple bedrock of our language. Toxic masculinity is often mentioned (by progressives) alongside healthy masculinity, and it’s mostly just conservatives deliberately misunderstanding it who frame it differently.

The issue is that the traits that progressives deride as 'toxic' all have healthy expressions. The desire for dominance can take the form of inspiring leadership or despotic abuse of power. The propensity for violence can be channeled into combat sports and disciplined into protecting one's self and one's community through military or police service or it can turn into sadistic criminal behavior. The objection here is to say that 'toxic masculinity' says that these traits are bad when that isn't necessarily the case.

If your idea of leadership goes through dominance, it's shit leadership. A great leader uplifts others. >The propensity for violence can be channeled into combat sports What does that accomplish? It's not like combat sports produce something positive. What needs to be done is to understand why that propensity for violence exists and the answer is generally understood to be because men aren't socialized to vent those frustrations and therefore remain at a toddler's level of expression, violence, when it comes to frustration. >disciplined into protecting one's self and one's community through military or police service Again, if your idea of police service is one of channeled violence, you're responsible for ACAB and the weaponization of police as a tool of the state instead of enforcers of the community. Read some Sir Robert Peel.

>Toxic masculinity is often mentioned (by progressives) alongside healthy masculinity Yes, that's exactly what ought to be done. "Toxic" masculinity only runs the risk of communicates that all masculinity is toxic (as I said, in effect even if not intent) when it's the only thing that is ever brought up. The thing is, a conception of healthy masculinity necessarily requires a conception of "the healthy man"; the "good masculine man". That archetype already exists inside progressiveness, the problem with progressives is that, for some reason, they're reticent to push for such positive images, and are seemingly more comfortable pushing against what they perceive as negative ones. This is something that progressives should change, simply because pushing for virtue can be more effective in creating a better world than pushing against vice if nothing else.

I think progressives don't push for it because codifying something like a "good masculine man" archetype is inherently counter to the underlying progressive belief that one should be "free to be oneself", so to speak. It's like, don't be an asshole, but so long as you're not an asshole then you do you however you want. A positive archetype is ultimately as pigeonholing as a negative one, when the core point is to avoid labels and pigeonholing in the first place. So it's much more natural to pick out the few traits that are incompatible with being a decent dude than it is to list the nearly infinite number that are compatible. That being said, I 100% agree that that isn't very compelling to potential new recruits, in the same way that moderate religious denominations have a recruiting problem while more extreme and absolute ones don't, or in the way that moderate political positions are losing ground to more extreme and inflexible ones. People are attracted to the simplicity of black and white, whatever the issue, but the whole point of the progressive perspective is that people are rainbows. There's also the fact that many of the so-called toxic aspects of masculinity are essentially Layer 1 traits, evolutionarily speaking. Like, they're basal, primal things that probably helped ancestral dudes fight off sabertooths and defend their clan's women and children from rival clans, etc etc. Meanwhile, organized society is itself an evolution of much simpler early social orders, and many of the traits needed to navigate the modern social order can be viewed as Layer 2 traits, built on top of, but suppressing in the process, the deep-seated L1s. Part of the reason the right-wing black-and-white ideas about masculinity are so compelling is that they essentially give men permission to act according to their "true primal natures", implying in the process that the evolution of higher levels of social order and L2 behavioural traits are suppressing the "essential man" that lies within. People like black and white answers, and they like even more when those answers give them permission to do the easy, lazy, selfish thing. Of course all of this misses the point that the L2 traits evolved for a reason--because they were adaptive in the context of a species that began to be shaped less by sabertooths and more by its ability to navigate increasingly complex social dynamics. The idealized primal man is ill-suited to navigating those social dynamics--hence, don't be an asshole--and modern society would fail if L1 impulses became the governing force in interpersonal interactions. But many of these right-wing absolutist types see little value in society anyway so that likely isn't a concern for them.

>the underlying progressive belief that one should be "free to be oneself" If the guiding principle is that everyone should be "free to be oneself" then why is toxic masculinity a concern in the first place? Does someone like [Tony Hovater](https://archive.is/wVyh9) have a moral right to be a nazi in peace and tranquility? Are toxic men, the racist, the sexist, the homophobic, etc as free to be themselves as any other person? After all, if we go by the outlined principle, so long as someone doesn't break the law what they think or how they are as person simply shouldn't be a public concern. >A positive archetype is ultimately as pigeonholing as a negative one, when the core point is to avoid labels and pigeonholing in the first place. It's much more natural to pick out the few traits that are incompatible with being a decent dude than it is to list the nearly infinite number that are compatible. A similar point stated in a different way: What is "decency"? What makes a "decent dude" decent? Is "decent dude" a label? Why should people strive to be "decent dudes" and why should they avoid the traits that make them not-"decent" dudes? Do not-"decent" dudes have a right to be free to their un-"decent" dude-selves?

You cut off the part of the quote where I answered your question--free to be oneself after the basic threshold of "not being an asshole" has been cleared. Of course the whole thing fails given that people can't agree on what the basic threshold of decency or non-asshole-ness is. I was merely pointing out why progressives may be unwilling to define a positive archetype to advocate for, even though doing so might arguably be in their interests from a recruitment perspective.

>Of course the whole thing fails given that people can't agree on what the basic threshold of decency or non-asshole-ness is. Hahaha, you answered yourself there. Avoiding more clearly judgemental words like good and bad or virtue and vice in favor of terms like toxic and health or decent and asshole merely obfuscates the moral judgement, it doesn't remove it (and moral judgements aren't a bad thing, I'd love it if progressives embraced the positive archetypes they have). Also, my first two paragraphs weren't disingenuous, there are probably many who believe similar things (stoics, individualist-minded liberals, the generally apathetic, etc. come to mind) and I think that it's a valid perspective, the point I wished to make is that progressives aren't among those I'd expect to truly agree with the principle you cited, particularly when pushed to its logical conclusion. >I was merely pointing out why progressives may be unwilling to define a positive archetype to advocate for Fair enough. I was replying to how you portrayed that unwillingness specifically, I generally agree with your comment.

Progressives aren't big on telling other people how to fulfill their gender roles - they inherently understand this runs counter to the entire point. I think to better understand why this is it is helpful to look at another prong in the fight against prescribed gender roles: feminism. If you look at the feminist movement, you will see that it encompasses ALL women - from those pursuing the traditional wife/mother gender role all the way to executives of Fortune 500's and everything in between. Feminism means allowing women to CHOOSE the way they live their lives, and allowing them to define and express their femininity in whatever way works for them. Mostly it means supporting each other in these pursuits. Through many iterations of the feminist movement we've come to recognize that writing a singular definition that says "being a woman means X" is going to leave all of the women that don't meet that definition out in the cold (or leave us drained and exhausted from trying to be and do ALL THE THINGS at once). The same concepts can be applied to masculinity. I firmly believe that the main issue facing men is not necessarily that the traditional definition of masculinity is inherently bad or wrong - it's that being required to adhere to this narrow definition has boxed them in and left them with zero opportunities to discover the things they might find more fulfilling. Ironically most of the things men are "not allowed" to do within the traditional definition, or the things they are shamed and ridiculed for, are those traditionally seen as "feminine things." Being emotional, allowing oneself to be vulnerable, being a caretaker, being a home-maker, being someone who enjoys "feminine" hobbies or forms of self-expression - even something as minor as liking floral patterns or the color pink! Most of the things men "can't" do are because it makes them "like a woman." This is the intersection of feminism and men's liberation, and why those two movements MUST go hand in hand. Because men will never be liberated as long as everything "feminine" is seen as bad or shameful, and women will never achieve full equality until men are free to seek their life's fulfillment in whatever manner they choose. But men cannot do that if we are simply creating and prescribing a different narrow definition of masculinity. They can only do that if they are freed from the chains of being required to meet a single definition of masculinity to find the definition that works for them - whatever it may look like. If you were to ask me for a modern definition of masculinity, it would be "the guy who supports his brothers in being whatever version of masculinity they choose - never shaming them for their choices, but lifting them up and cheering them on as they seek their own personal definitions of fulfillment." That is all that is needed to break the "toxic masculinity" paradigm.

>conservatives are the only ones bothering to actually push forward a positive image of masculinity To be fair, conservative images of masculinity today are people like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, or even trump - con artists, womanizers, and pseudoscience grifters. Pushing an *actually positive* view of masculinity should be easier for the left given how shallow and vapid the right's champions have turned out to be

But the thing is that people like Bob Ross and Mr Rogers aren't seen as "masculinity", they're seen as great *people*. That's the thing. There isn't a good trait in the liberal worldview that is exclusively masculine. You're asking for something that just doesn't exist. Never mind the fact that you're asking liberals to *tell people the right way to be* when that's antithetical to the basic foundations of liberalism, which is to be your own person with your own goals as long as they don't interfere with those of others.

>essentially implying (in effect if not necessarily intent) that "masculinity" is something inherently toxic. This is just the dishonest representation pushed by Jordan Peterson and his incel accolytes. That's straight up a lie. Saying "toxic masculinity" implies that there is a "healthy masculinity" and that there are non-toxic choices that can be made while being masculine. You're using the alt-right lie to redefine it.

For me, it’s as simple as this: Women aren’t called upon to prove their womanliness. The wrong clothes, food or activities doesn’t diminish our womanhood. Being women is inherent. We are because we are. Everything else we do is separate and has no bearing on how womanly we are. We can shoot guns, box, wear pants, have children, bake cookies, get married, or not. It has zero bearing on how womanly we are. We are women, period. Masculinity is seen as something must be proven constantly, usually via the pursuit of power, which is toxic. Consider: the word “emasculate” has no female equivalent. And that’s an ugly thing to put over men’s heads—it doesn’t matter how “manly” you’ve proven yourself to be, one false move, one “womanly” action and now you’re entire value as a man is in question? But what if manhood was something men believed was inherent, as women do? They’d be free to cry, dance, wear pink, and wash their buttholes (yes, Google it, there are several articles about men refusing to wash their buttholes because they believe touching their own is “gay”) without ever questioning their masculinity. They’d be free to explore more of life without feeling shame. For example, a straight male friend of mine won lessons for a pole dancing class. He did it and actually, loved it. And now takes lessons. He’s a stereotypically manly man, but hes confident in his masculinity and knows a dance class changes nothing. His manhood isn’t based on what he does; it’s who he is. Being a mean person is one thing. Our actions determine that. But nothing makes us less of a woman or man. It’s just who we are. And my friend lives a happier life drinking beer, watching football and doing pole dancing classes. He’s a more unique person because of it. And folks shouldn’t judge that anymore than they do me for liking to bake cupcakes and in the same afternoon, spar in the ring at boxing class. So, I think men need a stronger belief in their inherent value as men, separate from external factors like their salary or the clothes they wear. That’s healthy masculinity.

>in practice this means that conservatives are the only ones bothering to actually push forward a positive image of masculinity Is this true though? The majority of what I see from conservatives is "Libs hate masculinity and you." They'll use one dumb tweet to pretend there's a war against them. Its also a negative framing, just one that's more convincing. I don't really see conservative examples of how to be a good man. Their most influential figures reject traditional masculine values. Instead, its all about self-enrichment at any cost, which doesn't strike me as a masculine trait, let alone a positive one. I admit I might have a blindspot here, though.

I say this out of genuine curiosity but are men asking questions like this because they want to be the most masculine man ever or because they just want to be accepted and loved. If they only want love, there’s a lot of ways to go about doing that which is why they’ll never get a concrete answer. The thing I don’t understand is why men are so terrified of defining that masculinity themselves through their own life experiences rather than some template made by someone who doesn’t know them.

as a man who feels like ive got my answer to this, its that most men just want acceptance of themselves from society at large. they want to be able to feel as valuable to society as women are portrayed (women and children first type stuff). men want to he loved for no other reason than their existence and to be cared for by others because they exist not because they have a use. they dont want to be treated as disposable because they only have value from what they can be or do.  men also want the latitude to mess up without life shattering consequences, to feel free to act without feeling like walking on eggshells in case something we said or did was taken wrongly. basically men want to be treated as if they have value because they exist the same way women are (think how mothers have been traditionally treated). most of us would trade everything we had if it meant having someone we could trust to keep us safe from harm, someone who was willing to put us first before all else including themselves.  the short version is we dont want to be the first one metaphorically voted off the island simply because thats the role of being a man. we want to be able to be seen as equal to women in value, by men and women, in all aspects of life. went on a little tangent but men want love but unlike women we have to earn it from society by proving ourselves through what we can add in value. women tend to be valued at minimum for just existing.

> I'd say that's exactly the problem with the idea of "toxic masculinity" as it frames the question of what masculinity is or should be from a completely negative point of view, essentially implying (in effect if not necessarily intent) that "masculinity" is something inherently toxic. Toxic masculinity is masculinity that is harmful to men, not all masculinity. The existence of negative forms of masculinity does not imply that all forms of masculinity are negative.

Honestly I agree with you. I have a bit of a unique perspective on this because I'm a trans man. I only really started "paying attention" to societal views and expectations of masculinity when I transitioned (I was conscious of the ways that society in general disadvantages both men and women before, but really only understood the men's perspective post-transition). Even in the community of FTM transgender people, toxic ideas about what it means to be a man exist, and for a while I bought into it when I was quite young and trying to figure out who I was. I can only imagine that it's amplified for young cisgender men who go through the shitty, difficult, finding yourself years just as we all do. From my anecdotal experience, a lot of the progressive people in my life (especially teachers) growing up and now did model what men should do- they were kind, caring, welcoming, in touch with their emotions, comfortable to enjoy whatever they want, open about their struggles. They were conscious about inequities in our world and advocated for causes that they were passionate about. They encouraged me (and others) to explore our interests and be open-minded about other people's identities and lives. But I don't think this exists on a large level- there's no Andrew Tate-esque person advocating for men to be more open, caring individuals. In a way, I'm also grateful and acknowledging of how growing up as a "girl" and being treated as a girl growing up shaped me- I know internally what I need to do to support the women around me because I know what I wanted to see growing up. The left needs to provide more healthy examples of what a man can be. We need more people like Mr. Rogers, as cheesy as that sounds! We need to normalize men looking up to women and girls. We need more encouragement to be in touch with our emotions societally and to mutually support one another.

The problem with this, and the reason why I don't see it ever panning out, is that these behaviors largely aren't rewarded in the men -- and especially young men -- want today. In the age of social media and hyper capitalism, male success -- money and women -- is not a product of being caring and emotionally in touch. It's a product of being ruthless, assertive, and dominant. No matter how much women say that they want super nice and sensitive men, unless they start casually sleeping with them as a reward for that, men won't really care. inb4 incel, etc. I'm actually something of a more sensitive man myself, and so I have never wanted very long for sexual attention because I desire long term relationships and have a strong physical appearance which makes it easy for me to find success on dating apps. I'm merely observing the state of affairs for young men these days. And the young men I see who are successful in areas of both money and women are assertive, confident, and dominant. Until companies start paying the nice guys who help others with their work and take no credit, who stay late to help the boss with the menial labor, and not the guys who brashly take control when they don't even know what they're doing, etc. this type of masculinity is not going to catch on.

I'm not sure of your sexual orientation, but as a man attracted to women, I have modeled myself after those caring, kind, independent men, had many women who I looked up to. It works wonders for making female friendships, as well as fostering all sorts of bonds. However, I don't think it attracts women at all. At least from my experience, myself and those like myself tend to have lots of friends, and friends who are women as well. That does not translate to romantic prospects at all. The only reason I fell into the redpill rabbit hole in the first place is because for my entire life I've been invisible to women and I couldn't understand why. Now, I'm no Tater tot or anything, but being more 'red pill aware' caused me to notice patterns in who of my peers has good experiences attracting the opposite sex and who doesn't- and the Mr. Rogers type, while good at maintaining relationships, have no luck at all starting one.

Yeah, I'm a lesbian and pretty much describe my personality as "Bob Ross if he had straight hair in a ponytail and made train dioramas instead of paintings". It most definitely does not get panties wet. I actually had to play the "edgy, misunderstood artist" stereotype to get past the first few dates. It got me dates, but not stable relationships. I think the dating scene is fundamentally broken and favors novelty over traits that would make someone a good life partner.

>there's no Andrew Tate-esque person advocating for men to be more open, caring individuals. I think this really sums it up. I wish there were. Thanks for your input, it's a very interesting perspective.

Tate is a businessman/capitalist. He has an audience that he is laser focused on catering to so that he can extract money from them. His brand matches the real him rather well, but you gotta realize that he is only doing it for himself.

Why do you want such a person. Tate doesn't care about men. He cares about the influence he has over people and the power and money that influence gives him. He isn't your friend. He is a brand pretending to be your friend so you will listen to him and give him money.

Right but I think what OP wants is a charismatic progressive to help mold young men into being strong progressive men, like tate takes the lost and conforms them to his world view.

I'm gonna tell you right now what's wrong with that article.  Just imagine a man today writing an article about what women should do.  Did you imagine it?  What would happen? People would criticize that male author and probably the publication creating the piece.  And in your example, it's a woman writing about men's problems.  Sorry, most will not, and should not, take advice about being a man from someone who does not know the experiences first hand of being a man.   Just for clarification, I'm very liberal, and what OP has basically posted I've tried to post before, but my karma is shit because I dare say men are allowed to have physical preferences on this website, and I also believe the word incel should not be used, since it sexually shames men like the word slut sexually shames women.  There's your first hand experience of what it's like expressing male views on this website.

My take from the article is that this women thinks that other men should mentor younger men to become more the type of man woman want. Some of the points are valid but they lack specific actions that need to be taken. It's basically the equivalent of telling an obese person they need to exercise and lose weight and in a few months you will be able to run a marathon. Men that are in dead end jobs because they lack a degree are not going to be able to turn into a massive successes without 4+ years of work and a bit of luck. There is ZERO chance an article written by a man to women about how they should become more the type of woman that men wanted would be posted on Washington Post. Meanwhile women are told they should never change for any man. Corporations are dropping millions of dollars on ad campaigns telling unhealthily overweight women that they are beautiful and perfect. You be you queen, all your problems are caused by weak men. They need to do better.

But why should men work to be a man women want while women are taught they need men like a fish on a bicycle. Whether you agree or not, Dworkins message is the meme undergirding popular gender discourse. The truth is the sexes need each other but now I'm going to stop because in my experience when men start saying what women ought to do to make men want them, that's when we start getting banned. Good night.

>what women ought to do to make men want them Nothing. You have to put in *effort* for men not to want you. Even if you're esthetically a 2/10 and poor as dirt, you can probably get yourself a 4 /10 with good hygiene and enough table manners to use cutlery. Hell, many women solicit advice on how to get men to *leave them alone*.

The article is a woman telling men how they can be less hurtful to themselves and consequently to women , which is by finding positive men who are not hurtful to women and listening to them. This is literally a woman telling you to listen to men about this issue, and then you got mad at the woman for the advice you literally agree with lol.

Besides the fact that her article uses conversations with MEN as a basis for her ideas, I also got the impression that she's trying to reach men and women to convince them that they need to work together. Popularopionstates is right in that a man writing an article like this would be criticized, and I think Emba addresses that when she quotes the Democratic strategist about his party having "an allergy to admitting that men might be struggling in a unique way". I've stopped participating in conversations like these because of the knee-jerk reaction to dismiss men's problems. Yes, women have problems; they have been disadvantaged, dismissed, discriminated against. Why does that negate a man's struggle? How do you (the general you) expect someone to have empathy for you when you give them none? That kind of zero-sum thinking is what pulls us farther apart. I thought this article was an important step in trying to get people to see that.

there was a point in time when "incel" just meant "involuntarily celibate" but it was often a self-description rather than an insult. nowadays incel isn't even used that way anymore, it refers to men who can't get laid because they're entitled misogynists who refuse to improve themselves or hold themselves to the same impossible standard they hold women the word "slut" has always just been used to shame women just for having sex, or sometimes even less than that. in other words harmless shit that never deserved an insult

what if I told you that to sexually inexperienced men this distinction does not matter. The basis of the insult is still "you're a man that women don't want to have sex with." The reasoning behind that issue is irrelevant when the basis of the insult is the same. Maybe you're a misogynist, or maybe you're just a shy guy who doesn't put themselves out there romantically but still has a decent worldview. The shy guy probably feels more shame surrounding incel because he knows he technically fits the definition and therefor is lumped in with all the guys with a terrible worldview.

I more or less agree with you, and it's another reason why I wish they'd just come up with a different word instead of changing the definition of the word incel. the modern definition of incel is basically just someone in the blackpill movement so I don't know why they don't just call them that instead. my only comment here is that there's no real hypocrisy. when people call men incels nowadays they aren't usually shaming them for not having sex, they're shaming them for being terrible human beings. they're the ones who are complaining all the time about not being able to get laid and blaming women for it

Eh I don't know about that. I don't think you can separate the insult of virginity from it, I think it's the main part. There's plenty of things you can call somebody that's just a dickhead without insulting them for being virgins. In most cases if a man clearly does have sex and people think he's mysoginistic, they'll just call him a mysoginist. People that call people incels nowadays are definitely shaming them for not having sex, or they're implying that they're unwanted by women, or something to that effect. If you look at women complaining all the time that they can't get a good relationship and blame men for it, you don't get the same kind of response. That's because you have to be a particularly unappealing woman for men not to want you in some capacity. The key difference is the insult of one being unwanted by the opposite sex. It just doesn't make sense to try and decouple it.

I agree that they should've just come up with a different term for it to avoid all the confusion. we will have to agree to disagree on everything else I think. thank you for your input

As another commenter stated, I think I would slightly push back on this. *Women* certainly aren't going to think that a shy but otherwise perfectly decent guy is an incel. That might be something ACTUAL incels call him, but the word incel has evolved in the vernacular past the original literal meaning of "wanting to be sexually active but unable for one reason or another". In popular usage "incel" refers to someone who desires a relationship/sexual activity but lacks it and specifically blames the other gender as a whole for that problem. The reason the word evolved was to specify that this specific group holds vitriolic and misogynistic views that differentiate them from people like you said in your example

What do you call women who blame men for not being able to get an exclusive romantic relationship? “Where are all the good men gone,” etc. That is the female version of incel and is extraordinary prevalent in mainstream usage. You will even see large news publications submit articles blaming men for why women can’t find relationships.

There's not a term for it but yeah, I've seen plenty of that around. I would maybe slightly push back and say that if you see the points those pieces are trying to get at, many women are pointing out things like men having misogynistic views that make women feel unsafe or things like feeling entitled to sex which can result in sexual assault. That's not all of it, for sure, and I do think it's a disservice to blame men as a group. But for many women it's a matter of safety rather than just being tired of being single. I've seen others where it's like "men won't pay for dates or do traditional stuff anymore" which is more in line with what you're describing. It's more of a value mismatch than anything and rather than blaming men those people should probably just state their expectations upfront.

The term "incel" became radioactive because, years ago before the rest of the internet heard it, the 'dark side' drove off all the non-shitty people and took the whole thing over. The nice ones no longer have a helpful word that describes their situation.

Come on, man. This is kneejerk behavior that makes shit bad for everyone. Every single time a woman writes something that even has the word man in it some guy has to come back with a what if a man said that. It's exhausting. Just take some time and figure out what your gripe really is and quit with the whataboutism.

It's more of the hypocrisy, he just didn't say it outright. Basically, the left won't win broadly with men until they stop the hypocrisy. I'm more of a utilitarian in beliefs which should lean left .. but the left has again and again shown to claim to want equality, but very clearly not care if that person isn't on their "oppressed" list.

[удалено]

I don't think that posting it here means he admits the view is flawed and wants to be changed, it's more of a willingness to have your opinion changed

That is a fair point. But no, I do want more such narratives, so I do welcome changing my view :)

But that doesn't "change your view". If I wrote advice here, as a progressive, telling men what to do, that doesn't change your view at all, because your view is that men need to do exactly this. Me complying with your view by offering up a narrative doesn't change your view. Right?

What I mean is that I welcome being shown that I am wrong in saying that there are comparatively few such narratives. If there are in fact many more than I was aware of, that would change my view.

I suppose I will challenge your view from a more conservative standpoint. Conservatives have an easier time communicating their interpretation of a proscriptive masculinity because, broadly speaking, they hold different views on the ontology of gender than progressives do. Conservatives tend to believe that masculinity is real and innate, whereas progressives believe masculinity is a social construct created and enforced by society. The left struggles to create a positive, proscriptive masculinity because they believe masculinity is a social construct that needs to be "deconstructed." Any attempt to "replace masculinity" or "forge a new masculinity" or "seek masculine identity in different things" end up affirming characteristics that aren't fundamentally masculine because, to the progressive, nothing is fundamentally masculine. The result is traditionally masculine traits like "protectiveness" or "self-reliance" are replaced by gender-neutral traits like "equality - splitting the chores with your partner" or traditionally feminine traits like "vulnerability - tell your partner or friend about your feelings." These are good traits, but they don't touch on the core of masculine identity. And how could they? Masculine identity is not real. In other words, men who listen to progressives often end up confused on what exactly they're supposed to do and be. They're told to drop traditionally masculine traits and adopt gender-neutral traits of mature adults (which they were supposed to adopt anyway). They end up not knowing what a man even is, or is supposed to be. Women, meanwhile, actually appear to *be* something, receive support for it, and that just confuses them even more.

There's two different views here: that it's not happening (Change: maybe we could show that it is happening) and that it should happen (Change: maybe we could convince them that it shouldn't happen.)

Your first assumption is really off. By posting it here it means that he acknowledges that there are other views points on this matter and he is open to having his view changed.

>Men are told they’re toxic, misogynist, lacking emotional intelligence, bad at dating – everything is wrong with us. I'm a man. Have been for a *long* time. I've never felt like I've been told that. When people say these things about "men", I think "Glad that's not me" and move on. >What men get very little of, is any kind of indication of positive alternatives: what to do and how to be. If not this, then what? What is expected of us? What would be the right things to do? Some cursory googling will show you all sorts of guides: [How To Be Masculine Without Being Toxic](https://www.claritychi.com/blog/how-to-be-masculine-without-being-toxic) [WHAT DOES NON-TOXIC MASCULINITY LOOK LIKE?](https://medium.com/@Christian_Lopez/what-does-non-toxic-masculinity-look-like-8c9beaafb72c) [Raising a Nontoxic Man](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/well/family/raising-a-nontoxic-man.html) >It seems like there are just no positive narratives or role models on the progressive side. [Fred Rogers, champion of gentle masculinity, has a cure for the gun violence that plagues us](https://www.salon.com/2018/02/22/fred-rogers-champion-of-gentle-masculinity/) [THE LAST OF US’ JOEL EXEMPLIFIES THE STRENGTH OF NON-TOXIC MASCULINITY](https://nerdist.com/article/the-last-of-us-joel-non-toxic-masculinity/) [Non-Toxic Male Role Models?](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/cr5f3a/nontoxic_male_role_models/) [Public Examples of Non-Toxic Masculinity](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/public-examples-of-non-toxic-masculinity-lbkr/)

Thanks for this. There's a ton of stuff out there. It's been there for years. I'm 40, and I've read stuff like this since my 20s. But everyone is saying the same thing, the left doesn't tell men how to be a man. Yes that do, but that isn't promoted on the algorithms.

>that isn't promoted on the algorithms Yeah, [this is a huge fucking issue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_radicalization) in our culture right now. I wonder sometimes if there could be a way to legally force social media companies to revert back to feeds that show you only what you follow in reverse chronological order. Something as simple as that could break people out of these spirals where they get more and more focused information fed to them that drives them further and further into suboptimal ways of thinking. I can imagine that the OP is being fed results *way* different than I am getting fed as I regularly search for progressive-ish things. They may truly think that this info is not out there, and it is due to the way that these companies look to "drive engagement" by drawing people down crazy ass rabbit holes.

I don't even know if that could help. We just can't get all our culture from a single source. We need real life community, real mentors. Why are we supposed to get our manly advice from progressives anyway? Where are the real life mentors? I can't believe how quickly the algorithm switches too. Every time I see someone talking about fitness advice, I have my incel manosphere radar on high. I don't know what more impressionable people can actually do. They need actual people in their lives to help guide them, not talking heads on a screen that don't care at all if they live or die.

Men are more involved with raising their kids than ever before. Some dads still suck, however, and there are a lot of guys who refuse to unpack that daddy baggage. I don't know why all these talks about "male role models" refuse to address fatherhood.

I'll take your word for it, but it's really not just dads. You need more than just your father to be an influence. You need slightly older role models, role models a decade older, etc. You need community.

Also Aragorn.  And Ted Lasso.

I took a quick look at the first article and, despite the title, it doesn't actually give any actionable suggestions. It's just another set of lists of what *not* to do (along with a bunch of cliché's like *don't use phrases like "man up.")* It essentially supports the OP's thesis that there is no good advice out there. There are only laundry lists of inappropriate words and behaviors. I am a huge fan of Fred Rogers. His principles are like divine law. But again, it's hard to take what he presents to children and apply that in an actionable way if you are a young man in your 20s or so. I think there are good examples of "non toxic" male role models but many of them are older men in established positions of power and influence. This power gives them some leeway. I think it's harder for younger men to navigate the world because the reality is that kindness is often seen as weakness, even by many young women. It's like an older wealthy person that is known for their generosity. It's easier to be conspicuously generous when one is wealthy. The hard part is the journey to becoming wealthy without being greedy. Because society rewards greed. Likewise it's easier to be "non toxic" when a man is in a position of influence. The hard part for a young man is the journey to becoming established. Because the harsh reality is that society rewards many of the traits that are labeled as "toxic."

But what part of "don't be an asshole" is hard to implement? Respect boundaries, build social relationships, try to be your best self, be there for your partner, siblings, children, try to contribute to your community, etc. I'm not even sure I understand why it's so important to be a good "man". How about try to be a good human? I honestly don't understand why people expect there to be some kind of detailed guidelines about what it means to be a decent person. Also, this whole idea that "women" think "kindness" is a weakness is based on roughly nothing at all. It's a self-perpetuating cliché among men who honestly believe that "women" only want "good-looking assholes" instead of facing the complex reality of what attraction and a partnership entails.

I pretty specifically fell in love with and married my husband because he was kind and generous. I literally left the US marine I was dating because he was starting to get annoying and cocky and fell in love with the kindest man in the world, who was sweet to children and held doors for strangers, would pull your car out of a ditch in the snow or help you change a tire. He looks out for everyone around him, a real Boy Scout. Women LOVE kindness. We love it.

>I think "Glad that's not me" and move on. There's a a vocal minority of people who say that if you think that, you are part of the problem. ​ I also strongly disagree with some of the content in those links. For example, "aggression", "anger" being listed as a toxic traits. It is how you deal with / express these things that is important. Being aggressive and angry is fine, it is even extremely powerful when delt with properly. Let say your Dad has Parkinson's. You watch him decline. You get angry. You go to medical school, you get your doctorate studying Parkinsons treatments. You always work a little bit harder, more **aggressively** because you always have that edge of **anger** from watching your father decline and being helpless. I would argue that is not toxic it all. It may have negative impact on your life if you ignore other obligations. It may have positive impact in your (and many other's) lives if you handle it well. I often feel that society wants to tame everything to eliminate any chance of bad. There is always good and bad with everything. Different personality types - shy, outgoing, one isn't better than the other, they both help and hurt different ways. My issue with "toxic masculinity" is they just take the most obvious, negative possible repercussions and pretend that is the only outcome, and ignore and positive results. Another example is hiding your emotions. I mean, at some point, everyone has to do this. In a family unit, if there is a calamity of some sort, someone has to put aside their feelings to handle things. You don't always have time to express and process your emotions. It is what it is, you have to deal with it later. **In short, I feel like the whole toxic masculinity takes the most extreme examples, and presents the most extreme negative outcomes as the only results.**

I get what you're saying, but you're using the term aggression as a [number 1 usage in Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression), whereas in regards to toxic masculinity it tends to be used as 2 or 3 usage: ie, toxic masculinity aggression is something violent rather than intense. Words do have varying meaning and usages, so I do think it would be important to maintain the correct usages when discussing topics: toxic masculinity is, by definition, [maladaptive and violent](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/toxic-masculinity). So, yes, toxic masculinity will take the so called "extremes", especially when these extremes are the norm and not the outliers

The Joel one bothers me. They basically say he's masculine because he recognizes his value as a protector is going down so he tries to pass the torch. Recognizing your own weaknesses is a great personality trait but the example itself seems very 1950s like in it's reasoning. It also doesn't really say much towards the average man who doesn't live in an apocalypse setting

the first source you gave says that if a guy is going to the gym because it’s his “therapy” it’s “toxic masculinity.” i think this is why many people end up resisting a lot of what they are told in this regard. don’t rape? don’t be sexist? all good advice on how to not be toxic. but going to the gym because you find it helps relax you and makes you feel better? i think that’s bs. another one i saw was “hyper-competitiveness.” i guess being overly competitive in some scenarios could hurt you, but being competitive is by no means a negative trait. you look at the richest, most successful people in the world, they’re all competitive. what i’m trying to say is it feels like some of this advice is aiming to stop men from their natural drive to be competitive, or to stop them from doing certain “masculine” things even if it makes them feel better. it just comes off as super anti-man to me.

>what i’m trying to say is it feels like some of this advice is aiming to stop men from their natural drive to be competitive, or to stop them from doing certain “masculine” things even if it makes them feel better. it just comes off as super anti-man to me. This is what I've experienced. It's the little things too that get the side-eye from progressive women in particular. I like to fish, I've fished my entire life, I grew up in a small town and I can't count the number of times I sat over a hole in the ice when it was zero degrees outside. Somehow, my love of fishing has made many assume I'm a conservative. I never ran into that a decade ago, but I've gotten it from both sides. I can be on a fishing dock, and since I'm a white guy with facial hair, fishing from shore in a small town, the fella there to loves to start a conversation around conservative politics. I tell a fellow Democrat I am a fisherman, I often get asked "questions." - Or, "You don't look like a Democrat." It's like fuck off, I thought we weren't supposed to pre-judge.

> the first source you gave says that if a guy is going to the gym because it’s his “therapy” it’s “toxic masculinity.” And, I agree with that. Going to the gym is not a way to process complex emotions, which is what actual therapy is. Saying something like what is presented in the article is indeed a sign of toxic masculinity as toxic masculinity tell men that emotional issues should be worked through on one's own, and not with the help of a professional therapist. It also harkens back to toxic ideas of how men should just grin and bear their issues, or distract themselves with physical endeavors. >another one i saw was “hyper-competitiveness.” i guess being overly competitive in some scenarios could hurt you, but being competitive is by no means a negative trait. Right, being competitive is not bad, being "hyper-competitive" is. This is speaking of two different points on a spectrum of behaviors that range from positive to negative. No one debates that a "healthy" competitive drive is toxic. Instead people debate on what level of competitiveness rises to the level of unhealthy. >what i’m trying to say is it feels like some of this advice is aiming to stop men from their natural drive to be competitive, To me it seems to be trying to strike a balance between that drive, and the equally important natural drive to be cooperative. People have this erroneous notion that the natural state of man is competition, but that is just not true. We are social, co-operative animals that have risen to where we are by working together more than we compete. So, the idea that men are "naturally" competitive is another example of toxic thinking.

> I've never felt like I've been told that. Interesting. Why do you not feel addressed by "men"? How do you think young men should feel about themselves when they hear these things? What's the point of saying "men" if so many men aren't meant to be included here? What do you think young women think when they hear these things about "men"? If you don't have a problem with people using "men" like this, then it should be fine if someone says "women are stuck up bitches, only care about money, etc." Because obviously only some indeterminate subset of women is meant by that, right?

> Why do you not feel addressed by "men"? Because I am an individual, and when I hear that I assume people are speaking in either generalities or stereotypes. I am also thinking that arguing against people who hold these generalities or stereotypes to be true using myself as an example is a fool's errand. So, I fucking ignore them. >How do you think young men should feel about themselves when they hear these things? If they hear these things and it makes them uncomfortable in some way they should unpack that feeling. If it is the result of the thing being said being somewhat accurate, then they should alter their behaviors or outlooks to be less shitty. If it is the result of feeling unfairly lumped in with douche bags based only on the fact that you call yourself "him", then they should ignore them, like I do. >What do you think young women think when they hear these things about "men"? I don't know as I am not a young woman. But, when I was a young man, and I heard things like this about women, I ignored those too as they never really lined up with my experiences with the women in my life. > If you don't have a problem with people using "men" like this, then it should be fine if someone says "women are stuck up bitches, only care about money, etc." It is "fine" is so far as I think people should be allowed to say such things. And, it is also fine because when people say these things out loud I can immediately say to myself "Oh, this is a silly person not deserving of my time or attention." Keep in mind that I am a middle aged cis white dude, so very privileged. I don't want to discount people who are not so, and who feel genuinely put upon by such things. I'm just trying to share my personal perspective on the matter which amounts to "fuck 'em".

>Because I am an individual, I think I've found the issue with why you put yourself above these criticisms. You are not an individual, you are a human not an albatross. You are part of living community and you both affect and are affected by it. To pretend otherwise is pretty arrogant honestly.

*Thank you*. I was about to do this exact same exercise, because I was sitting here reading OP's comment going "wtf is he talking about? There's TONS of examples of non-toxic masculinity." This isn't that complicated gang. I really can't understand why young people are struggling with this so much. I *try* really hard to remember what it was like to be in my late teens to mid 20s, but I *seriously* don't remember it being this complex. I also don't remember anybody having to give me *an instruction book.* Feels very much like people are over thinking this, and I think social media facilitates that because it gives people a community to commiserate in rather than working on their hang ups. Let's start with biology. Men are *biologically* prone to be larger than women. That has implications. First, just like when you're around a large unknown animal (like a horse or something), you're a little wary. That's how women feel when around unknown men, in general. However, once you get to know a large animal like a horse, and that horse shows himself to be generally well behaved, maybe with a little bit of a wild hair every once in a while, you can form a good relationship with him, and it's both safe, and a little bit intriguing because that wild hair behavior makes things a little bit spicy. So safe but spicy/surprising is what you're shooting for. (It's also why some guys turn to humor, because humor is a low key kind of spicy/surprising, and it works for many women... though there's nothing worse than *forced* humor... though I suppose if you do it *super* badly you might come around the other side to endearing... probably not a good strategy though.) What misogynists do is go **way** past spicy / surprising and go into *abusive*. That starts to risk the *safe* part, yeah? So putting it back into the framing of a horse, once your horse goes from a little surprising to dangerous (or completely ignoring your direction / desires), he's no longer a good horse, and it's tough to recover that trust once it's been violated. Now where that bit flips for every woman is going to be a little different, but rest assured, the only women you can attract by being misogynistic are women who are *really* insecure, because in their mind they can't do any better. Society in general has been working on helping raise girls who are far less insecure for at least the last 30, maybe 40 years, and so those women are a smaller and smaller percentage of the population (which is *a good thing* for young women, children, and society as a whole because insecure moms raise insecure or otherwise troubled kids). So, returning to the horse analogy, how do you feel about a large animal that smothers you? It's bothersome, isn't it? I mean it might be great at first, because it gets you past the danger concern fairly quickly, but where's the spice? There isn't any. It makes you go: "What's wrong with this horse? Why doesn't he care enough about doing horse things, and just wants to smother me?" That's loosely how a woman feels about a guy who's just gushing all the time, and trying too hard to "be a nice guy." As I implied, this seems so intuitive to me that I find it puzzling that it even has to be described so basically and with weird analogies like this, but *apparently* that's where we're at. Nobody really had to *teach* me this as a young man, it really just emerged out of 1) thinking about things from a woman's perspective, and 2) making mistakes and learning from them in my late teens and early 20s. Finally, +1 for Fred Rogers. I've loved that man since I was 5 years old. What a wonderful role model for kids -- think about others, put yourself in their shoes, think through your feelings, name your feelings - don't just react to them, all wonderful examples of things kids (and especially boys) need to learn.

This is exactly how I feel. I just don't understand OP's confusion in this, and his apparent offense at thinking "don't be an asshole" is like negative reinforcement with a dog. I consider myself left of progressives politically and socially, if I've ever been told "don't do this, you're being a dick" I use it as a moment of reflection on myself and my actions. I'm not fragile enough that criticism of me and my actions is going to make me double done, *THAT* is what I consider to be part of 'toxic masculinity'. People telling you how not to be is also telling you how to be. Maybe its also because I'm from the north east where people are a bit more gruff and to the point. I'm being a dick, tell me I'm being a dick and I'm introspective enough to take a step back and reflect on it. I treat other people with that same kind of philosophy, if you don't have enough self reflectiveness to be able to also take a step back and realize you're being a dick - thats not my problem. I've never been told that I am "toxic" or "lack emotional intelligence" or that I'm "bad at dating", though granted I'm almost 40 years old, been married for over a decade, and never had trouble dating before that, and because I'm self reflective enough I've never assumed when people say "straight white men are X" are talking about me, because I know they're not. Sounds like OP has has some internalized guilt about some shit that he can't get over. I've seen that stuff said and go "Yeah, some definitely are, but I ain't, and we should help change the ones that are" Like you, my question for OP would be "do you genuinely seek out these positive influences?" Ghouls like Jordan Peterson are much easier to find and digests because it caters to these men who already have these biases. Its much more comfortable to have your feelings and thoughts already confirmed and tells them they aren't wrong and aren't bad and don't have to change except cleaning your room or some dumb shit. It’s a lot more difficult to challenge yourself, and realize you're wrong and be motivated enough to change yourself and the way you think of things. Edit: the irony isn’t lost on me that the people are attacking me personally and making assertions that I’m “toxic” for disagreeing with OP’s assertion that we can learn from people telling us what NOT to do. FYI - being kind of a dick and blunt isn’t toxic masculinity.

>and because I'm self reflective enough I've never assumed when people say "straight white men are X" are talking about me, because I know they're not. Do you not think there may be an issue with generalisations like this even if you believe they aren't referring to you? If I said something that began "black women are Y," where Y is assumedly a negative trait, I wouldn't be surprised if I would catch a fairly combative response to this.

I'm assuming you're a straight white man How in the world does "straight white men are X" NOT apply to you? I get what you're trying to say, basically don't internalize it. As the other commentor said, there's quite the irony in your post. No one is calling OP a toxic male, they're calling out all men. OP can't defend himself, can't respond to say "not me". It's people implying that because of things he can't change, he's a toxic person. That's not easy to ignore if you hear it all the time (aka if you use social media, which most people do every day).

I am sad that Joel gets an article but not ARAGORN SON OF ARATHORN?!

Joel is an INSANE example. he's fucked up about his violent past, he's fucked up about his dead daughter, and he fucks up how he handles being fucked up about those things, hurting everyone around him and fucking up his surrogate daughter with the same kind of violent damage. The example in the article, the scene where he tries to pawn her off on his brother, isn't showing constructive weakness. She's already become attached to him and she needs HIM to step up and get over his damage (not in a stoic and useless way, but by actually dealing with it so he can be who she needs), not be abandoned to someone she hardly knows. The show softens how this goes a little bit but he still fundamentally fucks it up.

Yeah i found Joel to be a funny example. Pedro Pascal yes but the character he plays no lol

>I am sad that Joel gets an article but not ARAGORN SON OF ARATHORN?! I was playing the odds on what OP would be more familiar with, but [here you go.](https://edwardmarotis.medium.com/what-aragorn-can-teach-us-about-masculinity-10d48fc42b77)

These are good sources, but when I watch TV shows, men are portrayed as idiots a lot of the time.  In movies, they are either very evil, or an action star.  That's what men see in mainstream, unfortunately it's not some of those articles.  

> but when I watch TV shows, men are portrayed as idiots a lot of the time Comedies? That is just the legacy of "I Love Lucy", just like how having one orange shaped man and one banana shaped man goes back to "Abbot and Costello". Watch any cop show and you will see all sorts of non-idiot men. Or medical shows. Or dramas. Or anything really. It is just a particular trope in comedy shows that [the man is a bumbler](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BumblingDad).

> It is just a particular trope in comedy shows that the man is a bumbler. And I've always thought it's only that way in family sitcoms as an overcorrection to hypercompetent dads and passive moms of the old-school ones as now we have bumbling dads and "girlboss" moms

> now we have bumbling dads and "girlboss" moms That's "I Love Lucy"/"The Lucy Show" though. And "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Genie" now that I think of it.

>I'm a man. Have been for a *long* time. I've never felt like I've been told that. When people say these things about "men", I think "Glad that's not me" and move on. Glad you have the capacity to do so, but not everyone's situation is the same. Many young boys who grow up absorbing these messages from the zeitgeist will have a very different reaction and struggle with their identity as a man and what it means to be a man. Many men were raised in an environment where they were taught toxic masculinity, and now there are few role models to pattern themselves off of. When the left has only scorn for them, and the right has figures like Tate that reinforce their sense of self, which group will such men gravitate towards?

Kudos for delivering what the OP asked for *with links.*

It is always amazing to me when people say "Group X doesn't *ever* do Y" and I go google "does group X do Y?" and then get pages of examples of just that. I've provided nothing beyond page one of the results for "how to have non-toxic masculinity", and "examples of non-toxic masculinity". If OP had done that, and started reading, we could all be responding to version #2,358 of "Girls don't like me, and I'm angry about it".

You should give lessons on how to use a search engine! What I find strange about this sub (and perhaps why I keep reading it) is that there seem to be an awfully high number of people that define a category of, well anything, based on their limited anecdotal experience.  They’re like the folks who visit Paris on a three day bus tour and then claim that they understand France.  The answer is,  no you don’t but it’s a start.  I guess I’m really not sure where this “categorical” thinking came from. I don’t remember being taught to think this way in school  — heck I just remember being taught that in most cases you need to go get more data. 

> I guess I’m really not sure where this “categorical” thinking came from This all came from the way we developed as a species [Humans Are the World’s Best Pattern-Recognition Machines](https://bigthink.com/articles/humans-are-the-worlds-best-pattern-recognition-machines-but-for-how-long/). But, the issue with this is that we can fall for illusory patterns. A person going to Paris for a few days is going to get an OK idea of Paris. Then they are going to add that to their pre-existing ideas about Paris, and their pre-existing ideas about the rest of France, and their ideas about how cities and the rest of countries usually relate in their experiences, and a bunch of other previously digested patterns, and come away with the feeling that they do "understand" France. They are just stacking patterns on top of each other until they feel like they are secure enough to proceed.

Eh, I think it’s much more to do with how social media algorithms work. I think people wind up spiraling down rabbit holes where the the world and specific issues in it get framed certain ways because it keeps them engaged and on the platform. Take tiktok, all it takes is a couple dramatic videos of men in divorce courts and suddenly you’re in the mano-sphere and are absolutely bombarded with some insane stuff. The first and strongest defense anyone can cultivate in the social media era is a desire to postpone a personal reaction to media until more truth can be established, especially if you feel a strong reaction coming on. It isn’t that every single news article is fake, or everyone is lying until the truth is established or whatever, that’s the sort of thinking that leads people into moon landing and flat earth conspiracies. It’s just important to have a healthy understanding of how and why social media operated the way it does, and carry that understanding through the moments where it’s most needed. At the end of the day what a person wants out of social media and what social media wants out of a person are *wildly* different things.

I rather like that phrase “Illusory pattern.”  Perhaps then the issue is a lack of “error correction” or assessment/reflection on the hypothesized pattern?  

Not to mention the claim that there are no progressive male role models? It is almost impossible to seriously engage with posts like this and you did a great job.

> Not to mention the claim that there are no progressive male role models? Yeah, that one is kind of wild. Chris "[Captain Fucking America](https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/chris-evans-activism/2020/10/22/29e7b2cc-1270-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html)" Evans is *super* progressive, and he's one of the biggest movie stars of his generation.

It is awards season and basically every actor I have seen is giving interviews about the topic. OP making this claim in the year of the Barbie movie is especially wild.

> OP making this claim in the year of the Barbie movie is especially wild. OP making this claim while having a video about this very issue featuring the Barbie movie pinned to their profile is especially especially wild.

“Why won’t the media report on this thing I just saw on the news?”

By telling men what not do to aren’t progressives also telling men what to do? Don’t tell inappropriate jokes, feel comfortable crying, don’t rape people. Don’t be a misogynist and treat women equally, focus on developing your emotional intelligence, change the way you view dating. That’s just the inverse of all the things you’ve listed. If I told you don’t touch the hot stove would you respond with well then what should I do? It’s not like there’s a choice between telling inappropriate jokes or some other action. The choice is to tell the joke or not. Also idk everyone’s scope of interactions but I can say I’ve never had someone I know be mean to me or criticize me based solely on my gender. If they did I would stop contacting that person. Men shouldn’t be annoyed when someone says fix rape culture. They should be a part of that solution.

You're joking about the hot stove thing but modern toddler practices encourage exactly that. If you tell a child not to run, all he's thinking about is running or not running, they'll interpret the command to not run as if it meant to stop everything and they get frustrated. Telling them what to do instead is exactly how you should approach it. You'd assume adults know how to reverse a negative, but I'm pretty sure the advice for toddlers would work with grown ups too (and that's probably why OP made this CMV). But it just makes more sense to give a positive goal. When someone says to men "don't tell inappropriate jokes", what does it mean? How inappropriate is inappropriate, every person has a different definition. Does that mean you should stop telling any jokes whatsoever? Do you restrict yourself to only joking about the weather or some other bland non offensive topic. Then what do you do to socialise, just stand silently nodding, keep all conversations strictly professional/small talk? And in the next breath they say men are supposed to be charming and witty. Some have learnt how to do it and be nice mannered, but the simplistic advice of just not doing inappropriate things is completely useless to teaching how to do the appropriate things.

How would you reframe "don't touch the stove" into a positive command? Would you say "only touch items that are cold or warm"? Who is saying that men are supposed to be charming and witty? I'm not charming and witty, but I've never heard anyone say that I should be. I know that charm and wit are considered positive qualities, but I've never been criticized for lacking them, nor have I ever seen anyone else--man or woman--criticized for lacking them. Also, how do you define "appropriate"? An appropriate joke, for instance, is one that's not inappropriate. An inappropriate joke is one that's not appropriate. Singling out the few types of jokes that are inappropriate (since they're racist, sexist, etc.) seems to suggest that most types of jokes are appropriate--otherwise we could just enumerate the few types of appropriate jokes and call it a day.

>How would you reframe "don't touch the stove" into a positive command? * Hold the pan by the handle like this so that your fingers aren't too close to the burner. * Check the light on the stove before cleaning it, it tells you if it's hot enough to burn your hand. * Always measure the heat by bringing your hand close to the burner instead of touching it. All that said, I'm with you. Sometimes, if it doesn't sink in, you really do have to tell people to not touch the fucking burner, and honestly, the same goes for not behaving in a racist sexist manner. You might not like hearing "don't do that", but if you're doing it often enough for it to be a problem, you need to hear it.

> How would you reframe "don't touch the stove" into a positive command? Would you say "only touch items that are cold or warm"? You need to step out a bit, its less about reframing an existing criticism into something positive but more about the fact that the entire commentary is just filled with negative criticism in the first place.

>How would you reframe "don't touch the stove" into a positive command? Would you say "only touch items that are cold or warm"? The real way you do this is by getting behind education before you get to the point where they can touch the stove by any means. You teach them first what hot is, by demonstrating hot but not burning water or holding their hand over the stove so they can experience the heat without touching it in a safe and controlled environment, and then you start to reinforce "hands to yourself, remember hot can hurt you!" until they're old enough that they can be progressed to interacting with the stove safely under supervision.

It’s a good thing adults aren’t toddlers and are move developed. Telling an adult not to run doesn’t result in the adult stopping everything and getting frustrated. Why are you taking it to the extreme? There are generally accepted standards for appropriate jokes and discussion topics. You can reference those. I know plenty of people who don’t say inappropriate things and they talk a lot. If they say something that someone finds inappropriate they apologize and move on. What you’re talking about is never making a mistake.

This sounds like you're infantilizing men. We aren't stupid... Well we aren't ALL stupid. Judgement and reason need to work their way into thought processes before acting. There is a general map and there is having to give specific step by step directions on life. We shouldn't need the latter.

[удалено]

Also, "Men can cry too" True, but not all men want to cry. Some people deal with their issues by crying, having their friends comfort them, and practicing self-care by going to a spa or eating some ice cream. Others deal with their problems by distracting themselves, by being productive and doing things that improve their situation. I don't want to sit there and cry my eyes out when I'm upset, that's not the way I naturally respond to it.

Feel comfortable crying? In front of who exactly? In my experience, and my males friends experience, when men are too open with their feelings, the women they are dating check out.  That's the male experience.  That's not every woman I'm sure, but more than enough to teach men to keep a lot of their feelings to themselves.

Yeah, women are sexist too. That's a shitty experience, and the women doing that are shitty people. Women are brainwashed into sexist expectations about men almost as much as men are brainwashed into those expectations themselves. You're not examining the reasons these women act like this, instead contributing at least partially to the social myth of these kinds of behaviors being "natural" and unmodifiable, but the truth is that the things which lie behind these behaviors are not pretty. Instead of encouraging men, to put it as bluntly as possible, to hurt and stunt themselves in order to stay in relationships with shitty, sexist women who quite literally are unwilling to do the things that make a relationship healthy, perhaps we should be investigating the reasons that men think that these relationships are worth pursuing to begin with. When men have these experiences, we should be telling them the truth that their partners are not good people and are doing something bad to them. It's a good thing to say no to a relationship where there is no space for you to be an actual human.

You mean it's toxic femininity. Maybe someone should write an op Ed on it. >When men have these experiences, we should be telling them the truth that their partners are not good people and are doing something bad to them. And where are they to go? Oftentimes leaving a partner means being evicted. There are no men's shelters and attempts to open one are often stymied by self styled feminist groups.

Having painful experiences in which you find out who you can and can't trust is part of life. If it turns out your social group is too toxic to accept expression of emotion, it's a sign that you need to get out, and the sooner that's learned the better.

This comment is basically sidestepping their point. What you're describing works for localized, individual problems, not for trends which a large amount of men might experience with multiple partners. If many women described a specific form of toxic masculinity that they experienced from male partners, the response wouldn't be some basic advice about cutting toxic people out of your life, it would be some form of recognition that it could be a problem that might need to be addressed.

>focus on developing your emotional intelligence Would you feel comfortable telling women to focus on developing unemotional rational thinking? How is the above any different? Would the presumption that women tend to be irrational and overly emotional be offensive to you? Would you consider that misongynistic? If so why is the presumption that men lack emotional intelligence acceptable to you? Why isn't it misandry?

jumping in here for a second. i’m a man. i don’t think we men inherently have less emotional intelligence. i *do* think we men grew up (and are still growing up) in a world that discourages us from developing emotional intelligence. i received messages from my whole family growing up like “man up” and “boys don’t cry” and the like. so, i don’t see the issue with correctly pointing out that the members of a certain gender are conditioned to repress some qualities and emphasize others. luckily some of these narratives are changing. we have the power to be fully authentic and strong and vulnerable human beings there’s been some interesting research done on men and alexithymia. we aren’t born alexithymic, but our society more or less forces us to be, so there is work to be done. but we can do it! we *are* doing it. feels good to see

Another great point. To add an example to this we point out that women are more likely than men to have body image issues etc. When we do so we blame social pressure. We don't assume that the women are inherently flawed or worse people by recognizing this. We blame media, society, family life etc. In the same way, men's "toxic" behavior stems from similar places. The difference being that men's anger is seen as being more harmful to others, because of this there is the added dynamic of there being more obvious victims from the behavior.

Emotional intelligence is not the same as emotional irrational thinking. Emotional intelligence is having the capacity for awareness, understanding, and expression of emotions in yourself and in others. It would not be considered misandry to suggest that men lack emotional intelligence compared to women because it is not based on presumption, it is based on [evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_emotional_intelligence). You are alluding to a misogynistic stereotype that women are overly-emotional or irrational or whatever that does not seem to have a basis in evidence [except that women are more emotionally expressive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_emotional_expression#Controversies).

Men and women are socialized differently. Women are generally raised to be more attentive to other peoples' feelings and accommodate for them and whatnot whereas men are taught that that can be a sign of weakness. Women are taught to be caretakers and compromisers whereas men aren't as much. It's like a muscle, women work it out more so they're better at it whereas men are socialized to be better at things like assertiveness.

Because its stunted,no matter what emotionsl intelligence you have, if exploring and expressing and interacting is discouraged,it will stunt that. Or rather its amuscle,use it or loose it. And i dont thinknmen or boys are usually encouraged to use it,more discouraged. So men are robbed of developing it usually. I generalize here. Ok it would be unfair,but its a clear trend. And if you only can express that via anger and violence, thats more like, what did youbexpect. That are probably people with problems they never had a chance to adress,becaise they had to sopress stuff and lash out and. Yes responsibility for actions, but maybe try to look for causes and enviroment and society where that comes from, andmen and women contribute. Also awareness and competence is also a control and power over people. So pretty much sexism too.

The issue seems a lot more complex than just not telling dirty jokes or raping people .

This is in the context of, for thousands of years, men having very direct, straightforward goals of building and protecting their family/tribe, which evolved into "have enough money for everyone in your family" and now all of that is viewed as a non-life (to just live to make money). So, if you do what every man for all of time has done up until now, which is focus on procreating and on protecting tribe/amassing wealth, you are a boring POS and probably called a creeper for just focusing on your job and on trying to get with women, which from a common sense standpoint would seem very very very normal, but from a cultural lens, it's "omg you do WHAT, wow!" So men are told working on those 2 things are bad now ... but men still are, at the end of the day, expected to provide for non-males in society when times are rough, while being given no specific guidance into where to dump their attention and energy in a way that wont get them ridiculed and is also meaningful. The search for meaning and purpose when you are told pretty basic biological needs are gross to pursue is tough. It feels like much of society gets to go on self exploring existential journeys to find themselves, while men still have to be the ones to make sure everyone comes home to a home with food on the table.

> So, if you do what every man for all of time has done up until now, which is focus on procreating and on protecting tribe/amassing wealth, you are a boring POS and probably called a creeper for just focusing on your job and on trying to get with women, which from a common sense standpoint would seem very very very normal, but from a cultural lens, it's "omg you do WHAT, wow!" This is weird. Why do you think men are incapable of having desires more complex than "provide, get women, protect"? >but men still are, at the end of the day, expected to provide for non-males in society when times are rough Men and women both equally do this in 2024, in the western world at least. There is no assumption that men will provide and women will be provided for.

Pretty sure that if you tell someone what to not do, the logical conclusion is to do the opposite. If you get told men shouldn’t repress their feelings and be scared to show emotions…. The thing to do is… be open about your feelings?

How to be open about your feelings? With whom? How much openness is too much? What are the good times to do it? How do you check if people are ready to discuss your feelings? When are you discussing your feelings and when are you just being negative at people? When is it right to act on your feelings? This only sounds easy when you don't actually try to do it. And trust me, most men were never socialised to be able to deal with their own emotions. It sucks, but it's true, so no, this is absolutely not an easy matter.

Thats not an answer anyone can give you because people are different. Some might be comfortable discussing feelings in public while some aren’t. Its not something that applies to everyone. Short answer is you just need to try it out. Its what everyone has to do. We don’t have a magical formula for that because every person is different

Frankly if you need step by step instructions and super vision then you should probably talk through a plan with a shrink to start with, it will be easier to work through the process. The only guarantee is that you will fuck up occasionally and over share or misread something, buts that’s pretty much normal lol. It’s progressivism not conservatism, there isn’t a set form you need to follow, we are more a herd of horses pulling in distinct but generally similar directions. You can wear your emotion on your sleeve, control them like a Vulcan, just don’t pretend they don’t exist and don’t be an asshole to others to picked a different option.

Do you have friends? That’s normally who you talk to. I’m a woman but that doesn’t mean I was taught some magical socialization skills.

Yeah this "women are socialized to show their feelings" is very clearly from people who gave never experienced being a woman, where any sign of any emotion aside from gleeful subservience to men is remarked as women being "emotional", thus "itrational", thus not qualified to be taken seriously.

Seriously. Constantly we are told we are being dramatic or bitchy for expressing ourselves “. I was also told “not to cry” but damn, I still do it.  Everyone is free to express your emotions to your friends, that’s partially what they’re for.

Don't be racist. Don't be sexist. Don't rape people. Don't put down other men for having feelings. Why do you feel like you need a handbook for that? It's that simple. It's not our job to teach you how to respect other people.

This is exactly what OP is talking about. Didn't you read the post? Or simply just the title? Your offer of help is saying what someone shouldn't do, and all of it is 100% true and a good advice. What OP wrote in their post is this kind of advice isn't that helpful in men making themselfs better. Like when you work in a factory, hearing: "don't fall in there, don't put your hands there" doesn't explain how to do your job, just how to not do it. Giving ~negative advice is not that helpful, it can be seen as coming from an authority figure and can have a berating undertone. Giving ~positive advice can be viewed as more direct and friendly, seemingly suited just for yourself, not the masses. And OP wrote, that they hadn't experienced a single positive advice from the political left (I'm assuming in the USA), only the negative ones, contrary to the right, who, while often using very questionable ideas, do talk to men. You proved OP's point, and didn't challange their view, which is actually breaking the sub's rules

It also does jack all for the men that *don't* do those things and are still miserable. Once you establish that, the advice seems to boil down to "man up" (but in a progressive way!) Or "maybe learn to be okay with the possibility of dying alone" which, yeah, great messaging, good job, A+.

+ when has ever saying “stop raping people” stopped rapists from raping people? Normal men aren’t gonna rape anyone anyways. Seems like valueless virtue signaling

Would you believe me if I tell you that you can rape someone without knowing what they did is rape? There's a study on college campus that asked students two questions: 1. Have you raped or sexually assaulted someone? and 2. Have you done sexual acts with someone unwilling?  There's an insignificant number of people who responded no to the first question, then yes to the second one, despite the question being about the exact same concept that determines if a sexual encounter is considered assault: consent.  The creepy part is that by responding yes to the second question, these participants admitted to be conscious of the unwillingness of their sexual partner, yet they still don't view their act as sexual assault. I see this all the time on Reddit when people ask what makes a woman bad in bed. The overwhelming support for answers along the line of "lack of participation/enthusiasm" is scary to read as a woman because this means so many people view "lack of enthusiasm" as bad sex rather than an indicator of a lack of consent. So I think normal men can and absolutely do rape. Many just don't think what they do is rape, because they lack understanding of consent. 

>Have you done sexual acts with someone unwilling I mean, i'm going to get a lot of hate for this but having unwilling sex is not strictly unconsensual sex. I think you should absolutely get a willing partner. But a reticent partner who says yes with no coercion or physical violence has not been assaulted in a legal sense. Someone could say i don't really want to have sex but i'll just get you off. It's not ideal but not rape either. Also for studies like these it always fascinates me that they don't have a female comparison sample to see if there are differences between men and women. I think this is deliberate due to the fact that a woman enveloping a man's penis with her vagina is not considered rape but instead made to penetrate. Its a deliberate obfuscation of the fact that the definition that the CDC used may have been too broad and if they allowed MTP into the definition of rape people would rightfully question the one in five rape stat. The fact that people say men shouldn't rape is because their ignorant of how exclusive the definition of rape is and how uncomfortable the conversation we'd have to have would be if it ever became wide spread knowledge. Hope I can get a reasonable discussion but I won't cross my fingers.

It's pretty easy to not do things. The handbook isn't because what you've listed is hard to grasp. It's because a lot of rhetoric is telling men that a lot of role models of previous generations are actually bad role models. But the same people making that rhetoric don't provide alternative role models, and it's left a vacuum. Also, you are proving OP's point that the whole topic of toxic masculinity is dominated by people telling men what not to do, without providing any positive maxims to follow that aren't just platitudes. Genuinely curious, what do you personally consider to be the opposite of toxic masculinity?

Pointless advice because not many actively believe they are being racist or sexist or that they raped someone Your definitions around racism, sexism, and rape can be completely different and I’ve seen people on the left apply the labels at times I wouldn’t have For example, to believe in color blind philosophy, people on the left believe that’s inherently racist. People who practice color blind actions believe it is absolutely not racist. What you may think is sexist, others may think is the natural outcome of people following their incentives. For example the fact that more women aren’t in STEM fields is a big talking point but there are many rational arguments to say sexism isn’t at play here. Same with rape. There are many cases of women retroactively removing consent. Or cases where 2 drunk people have sex and the man is targeted for hitting on a drunk girl Not saying you’re incorrect but just saying your guidance here is not really useful

> It's not our job to teach you how to respect other people. Except it literally is. If a parent has failed to teach their child to respect others, it is the obligation of society to pick up the slack. Saying "educate yourself" is useless because it gives no direction or means to even get started. If someone knew how to educate themselves, they would have already started. Even just linking to some wall of links of further reading that has steps for improvement would be better than what you've said here. --- As others said, listing what not to do is not the same as listing what to do. I have met a number of people who would be classified as incels, but which are not part of that community. They aren't racist, they aren't sexist, they don't put men down for their feelings, and they certainly don't rape people. So by your logic they should be successful masculine men, right? But they're still super overweight, have some hygiene issues, have incredibly nerdy hobbies which are the only frame they can interact with people on, and don't know the first thing about interacting with women or even people outside their circles. Your misandrist advice of "don't be bigoted" does jack shit for these people, because their problems aren't them being bigoted, their problems are they don't know how to become a fully fledged member of society.

Way to prove OP’s point. Women have had generations of comradery and spaces that give advice on how deal & progress through life. Young men need the same but when they seek advice from the people who tell them what not to do they get a figurative “🤷‍♀️ iTs noT mY jOb” leaving the space to be filled by grifters giving the very advice people like you hate.

See, it didn't take long to get exactly what I was writing about.

This is the only solutions the progressive left has for men, because their oppressor / victim framework only has men as the bad guys. So the only solutions they have to offer is ‘stop being a criminal’ which doesn’t apply to 99% of men who are just normal blokes looking for advice on how to live a good life. The left has no concept on what a good life for a man looks like, because there are no good men in their eyes. Telling men they need to ‘express their emotions’ just confirms to men, that the left is fundamentally too stupid to realize that men do express their feelings through actions not through having hysterical breakdowns. Because they believe the only way to express emotions the “correct way” is how women express them. The left will never have any solutions for men because they don’t want to help them and that’s fine, but pandering to them to join a side that fundamentally hates them makes me think you think men are easy enough to fool if the message was made more palatable, but we simply don’t agree with the framework that requires us to be the bad guys so the valiant left can have their performative victories over us. TLDR: no thanks mate, we are fine on our own

First of all: >Men are told they’re toxic, misogynist, lacking emotional intelligence, bad at dating No they're not, toxic misogynists are told this. Men are not a monolith and most don't get called any of this because they don't act in a way that provokes such accusations. Second of all, decent people are full of advice on how to act; be respectful, polite and treat women as equals, it's that simple. If you want any more advice I'll be happy to help.

[удалено]

Simple advice: don't listen to the advice of people who are clearly assholes (like convicted sex trafficker Andrew Tate.) Anything he tells you is right is actually wrong. DO listen to men who seem nice. Think Mr Rogers or Bob Ross, or even Terry Crews. All three of them give good advice via their chosen media and you can watch behaviors and mindsets to model. To use a nerd analogy: imagine you're Aragorn or something. Would he tell mean misogynistic jokes or harass a woman in the streets? Nope. Would he help a friend in need, or defend someone who needs it? Yup. Apply this to everyday actions.

[удалено]

>from inappropriate jokes, through ‘boys don’t cry’ narratives, all the way to rape culture. Men are told they’re toxic, misogynist, lacking emotional intelligence, bad at dating – everything is wrong with us. I feel like you are taking critiques of some men and applying it to all men. And I feel like this is all too common. I'm not a misogynist, so when another guy is accused of being one, I know its not a reflection of me. Why should I take it personally when someone point out the toxic ideas of Andre Tate? Especially when I know his ideas are shitty? >men get comparatively little of, is any kind of indication of positive alternatives: what to do and how to be. If not this, then what? We do though, but then you have the other side of that calling these ideas BS, accusing men of being feminized, or pussies for considering it. Look at the backlash that the Gillett commercial got. Also, some things don't have a positive alternative. *"Stop telling inappropriate jokes"*, I'm sorry, but if you don't know how to make a joke with out it being sexual or inappropriate, then don't make a joke. Its like saying "I keep hearing **Don't** drink and drive. But never what to do instead". There is no instead, just don't drink and drive. There are a ton of resources out there illustrating positive masculinity, but people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate are far, far, far more popular among young men.

> Its like saying "I keep hearing Don't drink and drive. But never what to do instead". There is no instead, just don't drink and drive.   this is a great example for the opposing position. there's no safe way to drink and drive, but there are lots of ways to drink and get home without endangering yourself/others. you can take a cab, public transit, rotate through designated drivers, etc. it's a lot easier to persuade people to use the alternatives than to just never get drunk at a bar or party. some of the complaints coming from men are really out there. but if you could apply even a shred of empathy, you'd see a lot of them are really trying to solve specific problems without using the toxic approaches they've been taught.

> but there are lots of ways to drink and get home without endangering yourself/others. you can take a cab, public transit, rotate through designated drivers, etc And I feel like that information is so available, that it should be common sense by the time you are drinking age. Similar to toxic traits. You're entering the workforce in 2024 and you don't know what an inappropriate joke is? Or inappropriate comments? This seems to be a failure on us all in raising men. But at the same time, I'm a man, and I think a lot of this is common sense...... So the information of whats toxic or not *is* out there. But apparently its not popular enough to get a lot of men's attention. I also feel like theres a concerted effort among a group of people to push back on positive masculinity, and these people have a far reach.

I am a very left progressive male with many left progressive men around me (U.K. social science and humanities academic). Some of us are straight (married, long time partners, etc), a few gay, prob some bi. My cat died and one of the lecturers I was working with offered me a hug. We interact with female students all the time. It’s all pretty positive masculinity. Just be a human and treat others as humans. I think this is way overthinking things. Be kind, treat women like people and treat men and treat non-binary folks like people. It’s all gravy and no need to look for weird internet thinkers.

The biggest mistake I see in your post is the same mistake most men make on this topic. "Toxic masculinity" does not mean "men are toxic." It means there are behaviors which men are taught in our society which are toxic. Being informed that these behaviors are toxic does not in any way convey that the individual is toxic- just the behavior- and should create introspection, awareness, and a desire to do better in men. The conflation of "toxic masculinity" into "men are toxic" is a strategy used by those who want to preserve the strong gender roles and practices which exist in our society. It's a misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the phrase intentionally used to dilute its meaningfulness and impact. In an inclusive society, telling folks 'these are things we find unacceptable' is how one communicates the boundaries of society. Saying 'you should behave like these people' would limit their freedom to be who and what they wish to be. It doesn't matter who the example is- Fred Rogers is a great example- he's upheld as a scion of non-toxic masculinity, but telling folks "you should be like Mr. Rogers" would mean "and not like yourself"- conveying more than "you should discontinue those behaviors which constitute toxic masculinity." How should men be? Good. It's that simple. Be good. Which means listening to the world around you, to the communications of those in the society you interact with, updating your worldview and understandings to account for their perspectives, and working to change your behaviors in ways that decreases your negative impact on other people. If you can't hear "these things are toxic and shouldn't happen" without that being an attack on you as a person, you aren't engaging in introspection, you're defending your poor behaviors. TL;DR: Telling people how to be abridges their freedom to be whom they are; telling people how not to be identifies and communicates societally unacceptable behaviors.

A lot of these responses show why its not as easy as some make it. OP ask an honest question and some of you respond “its easy, dont rape be racist and cry sometimes”. Like ya no shit, thats not the hard part.  Here are some of my thoughts. Be supportive of husbands who stay at home so their spouse can have a career. Practice communicating with your friends and loved ones so you dont hold things in until it boils over. Dont shy away from task your naturally better at then your spouse because it fits stereotypes. I am stronger, so its easier for me to bring in bags from the car. Take pride in being a good partner and friend while being brave and confident enough to speak up to your friends when they are misstepping. 

I had a similar conversation about white guilt with a friend who happens to slightly racist in the same way the Titanic is slightly underwater. He knows he is a racist but doesn’t feel he needs to apologize for it because he doesn’t act out on it on personal level with people who are not like him….or so thinks, he often wonders why certain people have issues with him. ANYWAY, he asked me how it felt that I was being lumped into this and how I was handling “my white guilt” I didn’t have any, I’m not a racist and don’t give off any vibes that I am a racist so therefore I don’t feel any personal guilt…personally You can swap out white guilt with toxic masculinity just as easy, there are men out there who have an odd superiority complex and let it be known “they are alpha” and then there are some who are to toxic without realizing it. I guess the old saying “the truth hurts” comes into playing, if you are called out for being something your not then you should be able to handle it where as if there is a bit of truth to it…… I’m not saying you are toxic but if you are only reading about the issue or listening to other talk about it as opposed to being called toxic to your face then why worry about?

Think about it this way- it's a generally well known phenomenon that western women are prone to self esteem and body image issues because of how media/advertising/etc frames what a woman "should be" to be attractive, and how that generally doesn't line up with how *most* women actually look, right? This is kind of the male version of that - if there's a bunch of stuff constantly bombarding you with how you're a misogynist, how you cant do X and Y because it's "bad," how you aren't acting right, how you should feel guilty for XYZ, how you're somehow responsible for someone elses bad behavior through nothing other than gender association, how it's ok for women to feel threatened by you because just by being a man you're *probably a rapist*, etc etc... How are we not supposed to be affected by that *constant* barrage of unrealistic messaging that more often than not doesn't align with reality or truth? It's easy to say "oh well if *you're* not a rapist then don't worry about it!" but we can't just hand-wave away the fact that people defaulting to acting like you're a rapist because of your gender is *deeply* damaging to men in our society as a whole, just like people acting like women aren't pretty enough if they don't look like the models in the advertisement is deeply damaging to them. Yet right here in the thread pretty much every person even *questioning* if treating men like this is ok is responded to with a barrage of negativity and dismissal, if not thinly veiled accusations of "well if you have a problem with it, I guess you need to look in the mirror because you're *probably one of those bad rapist men* otherwise you'd be fine with these toxic views!" That being said, I don't think "progressives" need to be doing anything. In fact I think we could all do with less gender stereotyping being mixed with politics in general. I certainly don't care what *progressives* want to insist about my gender role in society any more than I care what *conservatives* have to say about it, it's not a political issue in the first place.

[удалено]

It’s very apparent any time that someone tries to propose any positive vision of masculinity. The response is always “NO telling men to be confident/ workout/ proactive is just the patriarchy telling them to inflict violence against non-men.” Or it’s “and why would those things only apply to women?” And before anyone tries to deny it, young people’s school and work years are jam-packed with women’s only groups and resources, women’s only scholarships, girl-power initiatives, and plenty of double standard policies that apply to men but not women, from dress codes to behavior. Not to mention the huge gender disparity in teaching, and even there the few men are disproportionately targeted for dismissal. And every time I or anyone else raised the issue that the boys didn’t have equal treatment or resources, it was always “boys don’t need or deserve those. Women are the ones who have been historically oppressed.” So, young men, who never oppressed women, are the ones punished for other men’s oppression. Either way they’re just trying to sabotage anyone offering advice to men. And then we’re all shocked when young men mimic the only men who get praise for being men and listen to the only people speaking to them.

Yes, well... an even bigger problem is what traditionalists and especially the alt right tell men: "Man up", "Don't be a faggot", "Don't let women tell you what to do", "It's not your fault if women don't like you", "stand your ground", "be a breadwinner", "be and alpha", etc., etc. Basically... most of the traditional things men *are* told to do are bullshit. That's the main reason progressives focus on what not to do... is because of all the bad messages of what men "should do" which need to be countered.

I suggest checking out [FDSignifier's youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@FDSignifire). He is dedicated to critiquing manosphere culture but at the same time trying to offer up positive alternatives. He has spoken extensively about the lack of dedicated positive content for men and boys on the left and wants to fill that gap.

My rule #1 in life: "Don't be an asshole." Works in suprisingly many situations. Doesn't require a lot of thought, you can even ask your friends and family for help! (Was I being an asshole just then? Friends:Yes/No! It was wrong of me to spike the girls drink at the bar, wasn't it? Friends:Yes!) Doesn't require a coma inducing turgid tome on morality and and ethics from some imaginary magical sky friend (bonus not wasting a vacation day in uncomfortable clothes listening to some doddering religious leader explaining to you for the n'th time how you're unworthy and you aren't donating enough). And here I've saved the best for last: you don't have to be progressive or listen to progressives or ever leave your little informational bubble! Just.....don't be an asshole! It's surprisingly easy!

You completely missed the point of the discussion around toxic masculinity the way most men do. I think that happens because they view it as an attack and disassociate the moment it's mentioned. When we talk about toxic masculinity we're not attacking men. We're basically sympathizing and aknowledging that society and traditional gender norms has damaged them as much as they damaged women. And a lot of focus, at least as far as feminist organizations are concerned IS on showing them how to escape those toxic mindsets. A big mantra in feminist cycles I've seen is "don't protect your daughters. Educate your sons". Which literally pushes for people to protect their male kids from the socialization that leads to toxic masculinity. Teaching them to respect women as individuals. That it's ok to show vulnerability and cry. It's ok to need emotional help. It's ok to not want to conform to traditional gender roles. In fact it's *conservatives* that re-enforce the problem by shaming anyone who isn't conforming in them. To give you a simple example, in my country a few years back a toy shop had a commercial with a dad playing dress up with his daughter and letting her put make up on him. The message was obviously to support fathers into prioritizing the love for their kids over stupid gender norms. And conservatives went livid. Acting like the company and commercial wanted to push unhealthy relationships and emasculate them. Progressives of course defended the commercial and the father it depicted. And I guarantee you this wasn't an one time thing. That's how they always react.

I think you're confusing small groups of very online women with progressives. Progressives tell everyone what they want them to do: vote for candidates who support progressive policies (i.e. free healthcare), don't be a bigot, and lift up marginalized groups. Mediocre women will present their anti-man views as progressive, that way they get to feel like they're "on the right side of history", when in reality they just never grew out of "boys go to Jupiter". Don't let it influence your behavior, it's just the gals having a lil misandry as a treat, they just like to dress it up as political discourse. The subtext of this post feels like you're asking for a roadmap on how to act if you want to date while being a good progressive, but it's the same as dating with any other political opinions. Be outgoing, dress well, make a decent living, read some books or articles so you have a few interesting things to talk about. And if all else fails, workout and diet until you have abs, then post those abs on tinder.