This is why a positive kind of masculinity also needs to reject patriarchy and capitalism.
“Producing more than you take” doesn’t have to mean money. (Though I did mean money in my original comment, cuz Zuck is a greedy monster.)
Just listening to people more than you demand to be listened to. Doing chores that you know your friends and family hate. Sharing your knowledge. Cooking. Fixing things. There are so many ways you can contribute to your group that don’t take money, and don’t even take much time.
Being financially responsible and helping people when you can is important, don’t get me wrong.
But seeing your worth in purely financial terms is really limiting and unhealthy for the individual, and also tends to create perverse hierarchies inside of families.
Right but take what you just said to it’s logical conclusion. Why should only men have those responsibilities? All you’ve really done is create a different, nicer patriarchy, that still expects men to conform to specific gender roles and still expects women to conform to specific gender roles. Consider the inverse, all the people who physically can’t produce more than they require to survive, who need additional attention or care, through no fault of their own. Can those people not be men?
You’ve described just a generally good person, and realistically you’ve described more women than you have men. The goal should be to get rid of the idea that certain responsibilities are reserved for certain genders completely.
Those aren’t unique to men though (except your last paragraph), how is that not general advice?
I think our advice to men should be more:
“Your problems matter”
Or
“Standing on your own two feet (and autonomy) is especially important to most men, so we should change our economy to support that”
I’ve noticed most advice given to men usually boils down to more responsibility or expectation instead of actually giving them something like male specific support programs.
This is why a positive kind of masculinity also needs to reject patriarchy and capitalism.
“Producing more than you take” doesn’t have to mean money. (Though I did mean money in my original comment, cuz Zuck is a greedy monster.)
Just listening to people more than you demand to be listened to. Doing chores that you know your friends and family hate. Sharing your knowledge. Cooking. Fixing things. There are so many ways you can contribute to your group that don’t take money, and don’t even take much time.
Being financially responsible and helping people when you can is important, don’t get me wrong.
But seeing your worth in purely financial terms is really limiting and unhealthy for the individual, and also tends to create perverse hierarchies inside of families.
Right but take what you just said to it’s logical conclusion. Why should only men have those responsibilities? All you’ve really done is create a different, nicer patriarchy, that still expects men to conform to specific gender roles and still expects women to conform to specific gender roles. Consider the inverse, all the people who physically can’t produce more than they require to survive, who need additional attention or care, through no fault of their own. Can those people not be men?
You’ve described just a generally good person, and realistically you’ve described more women than you have men. The goal should be to get rid of the idea that certain responsibilities are reserved for certain genders completely.
Those aren’t unique to men though (except your last paragraph), how is that not general advice?
I think our advice to men should be more:
“Your problems matter”
Or
“Standing on your own two feet (and autonomy) is especially important to most men, so we should change our economy to support that”
I’ve noticed most advice given to men usually boils down to more responsibility or expectation instead of actually giving them something like male specific support programs.