Not sure if he says it as in mankind (in which case I'm on board) or as in man vs woman (in which case he should go out more and notice we can do that too).
Just because he's saying men, doesn't mean its vs women. If this entire post was about women, it would be seen as some empowering message, but if its men its negative?
That's a common stereotype assuming men are strong and need no empowerment and an assumption that that guy is a sexist.
I wouldn’t say it’s an assumption that men are sexist. If anything, I think men are often given the benefit of the doubt, even if they don’t necessarily deserve it.
@apple_maggots- Ironically, much like many have missed a crucial fact on the Gillette ad- your logic is flawed. The key is in your post. “It is a common stereotype that men are strong and...” yes. So the female version of OP’s message wouldn’t be one of empowerment. It would be one of common stereotypes. So picture a woman saying “Ladies- remember that work and opinions are for men. Your job is to support your man and not cause him problems. Make his life easier and do the House work because he works hard. Find a man with lots of money and you’ll fall in love with him eventually. Until then, or something better comes along, just lock him down...” Everything this guy says is a stereotype. It’s not a message of empowerment. He isn’t telling men that they can better themselves, that it’s ok to be vulnerable or show emotions- he isn’t saying that men should support each other and remember they are special too, that they have great potential and should strive to be who they are.
What if you’re a man and not a leader? What if like 99.99% of men you feel fear? What if like most men you won’t use your fists, and you really shouldn’t because it’s 2019 and most problems have better solutions? What if you aren’t the type of man who finds what they want and gets it? This is a list of traditional masculine stereotypes, not a message of empowerment. It is that “toxic masculinity” people talk about. Men need to be told they can feel afraid. That fear doesn’t make them less of a man or a person and isn’t something to be ashamed of. That getting what you want doesn’t make you a man, but that doing right defines the type of man you are- and above all- that you don’t have to “be a man” by these or any standards. That they don’t have to try to meet some arbitrary standard of “manliness” to be valid as a person, and should feel comfortable in their skin even if they do not meet the stereotype of assertive, aggressive, strong, tough, and stoic.
Promotion of stereotypes is not a progressive way of thinking. Also, most of the points you made against men wanting to be emotional or 'weak' can be flipped and applied to anything with female empowerment. So your points in that case are flawed as you state it as though its only men that might not want that.
Plus the reason his message rings so true is because of how much focus is being put with statements like yours to make it seem like men have it all good yet are all wrong at the same time. I see that message as "do as you wish, you are a man and be proud of it". A counter message to benefit men that might feel lesser after seeing all the 'women are great' messages. Its not a competitive concept but exclusion of one group causes such thoughts, so this message can be seen as the inclusion of men as well into the movement of fairness (i won't call it feminism)
You again seem to miss the point. The gender “norm” for men is alresybak expectation to do such things. The “men don’t have it so great” you mention? Those are the unfair or biased expectations society projects onto men wether they accept them or not. This man is spewing those exact expectations. The stereotypical idea that men should be a certain way. Did it ever cross your mind not all men aspire or want to be strong, to fight, to be “macho?” Some men want to be pampered, to be vulnerable, to be what society would perceive as “weak.” You are confusing a message of empowerment with an expectation. To tell someone they CAN be something is not the same as to say that being something defines who they are. You realize that being a “good person” is independent of gender. The steps are the same for men and women. Just like women can choose to be Limber jacks or beauty queen home makers- men can choose too. A man can behave in ways seen as stereotypically masculine of that is who he is...
... so long as his doing so is his choice and not a social pressure to feel like he has to, and so long as his doing so isn’t taking away from someone else. As for being flipped- can you give me some examples? One of us isn’t understanding the their one- so if you show me how you think it can be flipped- we can figure out who isn’t quite getting the others point. Female empowerment doesn’t say a woman can’t be vulnerable, and it doesn’t say she can’t also be tough. That’s why it’s empowerment. It’s not trying to limit what a woman can do and still be considered a “woman.” If you’re proud you use your fists to solve problems that isn’t empowerment. That’s ignorance.
Well this post doesn't demand that men must be strong. It simply says that they can be, ergo any man who wants to be strong but doesn't feel capable should have more faith and work to be stronger. And the strength doesn't have to be physical, it can be in an emotional, logical or patience based sense. You're limiting my arguments to a sharp scope while your own points are being portrayed from your preferred perspectives. That's not a fair way to debate a point and just makes me need to re-explain what you should attempt to understand. At least try to see my perspective and you'll get some bearing of what i mean in my original post
By being flipped I mean any messages about womens empowerment could be rotated to that same scrutiny and it could be said that some women don't want to be strong or working womrn. Some women may just want to stay hone as housewives and raise a family. So does this make female empowerment and infringement on their wishes since you claim the male variant does that for the 'feebler' men. Not meant in an insulting sense, more so the less macho men.
Here are the two major flaws with that logic:
1. He does not say that men can be these things. He says unequivocally that BEING A MAN MEANS being those things. Ergo- one who is not those things- is not a man. Being a man means not being afraid. Those are his exact words. Have you ever been afraid? If so- this post says you are not a man. It’s that simple. It’s language. English. He said what he said and that is exactly what it means.
2. Yes. If someone said “Being a woman means using your fists sometimes” or “being a woman means having a career...” you would be right and that particular message would not be empowering to women. When someone says that as a woman you CAN have a career, as a woman you don’t HAVE TO behave a certain way- that is empowering. You aren’t limiting women. You are telling them they have potential and can do things. CAN do things, versus MUST do things.
Well I'm a ducking idiot. It does say that. Point 1 got to me, i guess i read that differently the first time. In that case my whole argument was based on the wrongful assumption that it said "being a man means you CAN BE strong". Not just being a man = being strong. That's idiotic for sure.
Lol. Nah. It’s easy enough to misread. I’d agree with you if it said can be. It’s good for men and boys to hear it. I knew there had to be a misunderstanding somewhere, and we found it, so it’s all good.
Kek. Props to you for pulling through the argument. I only read the pic once and imprinted it in my mind. And yeah, good to see you agree with that. Boys do need to hear it more
2Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
I don't get being proud of your sex/race or whatever.
Like, that's not an achievement. You're born with those things, why take pride in it?
If all you've got going for yourself is that you're a man, you don't have anything going for you.
Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't be ashamed to be a man either but that doesn't mean you should take pride in it. It's kinda meaningless.
I mostly agree. However it gets complicated. We can be proud of others right? If a shy friend overcomes it to ask out someone they like, if your friend takes on challenges to do something amazing or just what is right- we can be proud of them right? And of course, to the degree it is healthy and not harmful, we can be proud of ourselves right? As humans we tend to use a “team” mentality on the world. We group things. Dogs are fun and safe, Bears you likely shouldn’t stop and pet. If you don’t know (or sometimes even if you do,) that a bug is harmless- you likely assume it’s a danger, we have our social class, out “clique” of people with similar interests or politics or etc. who we feel are more likely to think like us, understand and accept us, watch out for us and our interests. We have our genders, sometimes a CIS person is more comfortable or needs to be around people like them, other times around the opposite binary gender. Sometimes non CIS people are uncomfortable around CIS...
... people. We have our age groups- the young often feel frustrated or condescended to by older folks, older folks often feel off out by the young, and while some common ground exists we can usually assume that people around our age have better chances of understanding our pop culture and slang and world views etc. all these groups on to race, nationality, ethnicity. As you say- it’s largwly arbitrary. But the more “different” a person is than us- the more we have to actively think when we interact. Words can mean different things, common sayings or references can be misunderstood or missed, values and norms are different, and while that can enrich us it also can be taxing. Most people who travel or live in very different places from their home at times just want to be around people who intuitively “get” their culture and they can behave without much thought.
So where we divide into “teams,” people will have pride in their teams. A person who has never played on a pro sports team, possibly never played the sport themselves at all- they will often still be proud their team won. They may boast to other people about the victory they played no part in, hold it over fans of the losing teams head despite neither person being anything but an observer. They’ll often be proud of themselves to. “I knew so and so was the right draft pick!” “I have never missed attending a home game in my life...” “I’ve been a fan since 1982!” A lot of people here weren’t alive in 1982. If you were born in 1999 and were a fan- you’ve been a fan your whole life- even if that’s shorter that’s all the time you’ve known they’ve existed right?
So pride... pride is a tricky thing. All in all, where it doesn’t approach elitism or narcissism pride isn’t inherently bad. When we can all remember that our pride in a thing doesn’t need to detract from another’s pride, when another’s pride doesn’t diminish our own. When we don’t use pride as a weapon or to divide. You can be proud to be a part of something you love, and I can give no shits about that thing but still respect that you are proud of it. All in all the division of things into easily classified groups is arbitrary. We can choose any criteria we want and form a group of it, and generally no “group” of sufficient size will be entirely possessing the properties we take pride in. But there is something. To be said about culture.
Diversity enhances us and life. A person could live on simple staple foods, every restaurant could be a Taco Bell- but diversity and options allow us all to explore and experienvebamd to find that which we like or makes us feel most happy. We are all just looking for our place in life. From a survival standpoint as well as a phsycological standpoint- that is where much of our natural tendency to group things comes from. If we truly eliminate groups- there wouldn’t be division- but there would be a mono culture. That mono culture would skew towards a dominant base. That is the competition- to preserve what one sees as normal and comfortable. To not be the culture thatbis absorbed into another. As discussed- where there is competition, there will almost always be pride, and it will likely be the unhealthy sort unless individuals transcend basal thinking and change their outlook to one where “winning” means coexisting better than anyone else.
That's a common stereotype assuming men are strong and need no empowerment and an assumption that that guy is a sexist.
1. He does not say that men can be these things. He says unequivocally that BEING A MAN MEANS being those things. Ergo- one who is not those things- is not a man. Being a man means not being afraid. Those are his exact words. Have you ever been afraid? If so- this post says you are not a man. It’s that simple. It’s language. English. He said what he said and that is exactly what it means.
2. Yes. If someone said “Being a woman means using your fists sometimes” or “being a woman means having a career...” you would be right and that particular message would not be empowering to women. When someone says that as a woman you CAN have a career, as a woman you don’t HAVE TO behave a certain way- that is empowering. You aren’t limiting women. You are telling them they have potential and can do things. CAN do things, versus MUST do things.
Like, that's not an achievement. You're born with those things, why take pride in it?
If all you've got going for yourself is that you're a man, you don't have anything going for you.
Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't be ashamed to be a man either but that doesn't mean you should take pride in it. It's kinda meaningless.