Angry Men

[OldWiseGuy]

I’ll put it to you this way. I live with my wife and we have a friend we live with as well. Both are huge on women’s rights and will get extremely angry if you insinuate a man can do something a female can’t. However, if something needs to be carried, a bug needs to be killed, or yard work needs to be done, my name is called on every time. Men are societally expected to do more physical labor and handle certain things, and we can’t get angry about it. My wife however is allowed to get angry over anything because her “emotions” are up and down because she’s a woman.

Women shouldn't do hard physical work. It's unbecoming.

 

[Skeeb_0]

Women shouldn't do hard physical work. It's unbecoming.

Not sure if that’s sarcasm or not.

I work with women at UPS that make the same wages but ask me for help because they can’t lift something. Look, I’m all for women having equal rights and all of that, but if you can’t do what you are getting paid to do, woman or man, you shouldn’t be doing it. Companies can’t discriminate though or there will be a lawsuit.

Everyone gets angry and men do have a tendency to get more physical when angry because we think we are all big and bad, but there’s a lot of bs going in with women equality as well as people who use the race debate to excuse bs. If women truly want complete equality, then why aren’t they signing up to be construction workers, landscapers, and mechanics. They don’t want to do that crap, but if their man loses his job or is looking for a new one and they pass on those because they don’t want to do physical labor, oh boy will their man hear about it.

 

[durangodawood]

Women shouldn't do hard physical work. It's unbecoming.

Men really should take over the task of giving birth.

 

[Skeeb_0]

Men really should take over the task of giving birth.

You can always change into a man if you’d like.

 

[durangodawood]

You can always change into a man if you’d like.

Ouch!

As a man, that really stings.

(Good one! )

 

[ChicanaRose]

Both are huge on women’s rights and will get extremely angry if you insinuate a man can do something a female can’t. However, if something needs to be carried, a bug needs to be killed, or yard work needs to be done, my name is called on every time.

I work with women at UPS that make the same wages but ask me for help because they can’t lift something. Look, I’m all for women having equal rights and all of that, but if you can’t do what you are getting paid to do, woman or man, you shouldn’t be doing it.

I'm sorry you had some negative experiences. Perhaps a double-standard has been imposed on you.

When you help these women out, do they express gratitude? Even if the situation is technically unfair, you can still help with the attitude of service, and they can have a thankful attitude that would make the experience more positive.

 

[ChicanaRose]

One thing that I need to be careful with when I say that I want to help someone to manage his anger, is not to fall into the trap of feeling responsible for someone else's inexplicable or irrational anger.

Sometimes people are angry for reasons that are not within your control. That can stem from stereotypes (they are angry because of your race or other demographics), or from pathological envy (they are angry because you are happier).

In these cases, there is not much you could do to help them, except pray from a distance.

 

[Paidiske]

Women shouldn't do hard physical work. It's unbecoming.

Men really should take over the task of giving birth.

Well, to be fair, giving birth is pretty "unbecoming."

Look, the reality is, I can move my own furniture, kill my own spiders, and do my own yard work (or in the case of very big jobs, perhaps, pay someone else to do it). But in the cases of the heavier work, yes, my husband is physically stronger, so it makes sense to ask for his help. Just exactly the same way as he asks for my help in areas of my strength and gifts. That's what marriage should be; a partnership; a team.

What I observe is that the main reason women don't sign up to be things like construction workers or mechanics isn't the nature of the work, it's the hostile work environment dominated by men who don't want women there or treat them badly.

And workplaces shouldn't be asking anyone to lift anything that's heavy enough to possibly cause injury. That's a safety issue, not an equality issue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What are the root causes of male disenfranchisement? How do we help them manage their anger in a healthy way? How have you tackled this within yourself or with others?

Please share your thoughts.

I think the biggest problem here is women...

Or perhaps more correctly, feminists.

Feminism has essentially achieved it's basic goals of equality. If not equality of outcomes, equality of opportunities. This has left modern feminism with little more to do than criticize men. The core of feminism has bought into a narrative that men should be less....manly. They want men who share more, to take less, to be more emotional, less aggressive, generally...more feminine. They want men who are gentle, thoughtful, sensitive, and deeply supportive and seeking consent for every sexual advance.

In the open, in public, and in particular....in the view of other women....women say that they agree with this idea. They don't want to be judged by other women....and I think to some extent, they want other men to be this way.

They don't want their man to be this way though. They prefer, by a huge percentage, a man who is emotionally reserved (never heard a woman tell me I should be more emotional) more aggressive, both interpersonally and physically, more dominant and in control.

There's a lot of research backing this up...but if you don't believe me, look no further than the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey. The male fantasy for women, which was hugely popular, is essentially a borderline obsessive sexual stalker/deviant with GQ model looks and an unlimited bank account.

When one looks at the two pictures of what women want a man to be....they could hardly be more different. We have what women claim they want men to be like (let's call this man #1) and what women want their man to be like (man #2).

I think many young men these days are rightly confused about how they should behave. Society tells them to be man #1....but they largely see women only going for man #2. When it comes to the incels and other "angry young men" you see their views becoming more focused and upset about the hypocrisy of this dichotomy. The more they become like man#1 (which is inherently easier to be like) the less successful they are in relationships. It drives a view of women that's shallow and duplicitous.

I don't think it's entirely true that women want all men to be like man#2....they would probably prefer if most men were like man#1. Man#1 is easier to be platonic friends with, easier to compete in the workplace with, and generally less troublesome than man#2. He's less of a concern in general because he's not inherently sexual to them.

I wish I had an easy answer for solving this complicated dichotomy of what women want in a man....but I don't. I do find it amusing to see women complain about what masculinity is though...because it is largely whatever women want. If women want men with long hair, eyeliner, and manicured nails...that's what you'll get. If women want muscular guys with beards that hold open doors....that's what they'll get.

What you can't get is both at the same time.

 

[ChicanaRose]

I think many young men these days are rightly confused about how they should behave. Society tells them to be man #1....but they largely see women only going for man #2. When it comes to the incels and other "angry young men" you see their views becoming more focused and upset about the hypocrisy of this dichotomy.

Is there something we can do to help manage their anger in a healthy way?

There are cases in which only thing we could do is pray from a distance. Do you think that this is one of them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is there something we can do to help manage their anger in a healthy way?

Are we talking about those small number of young men who end up identifying as incel or otherwise isolated and potentially violent?

There are cases in which only thing we could do is pray from a distance. Do you think that this is one of them?

I remember being young and thinking I was a "loser" and "inexperienced" before losing my virginity at 16 lol. Now I think that I was overly hormonal and causing myself too much stress over it....16 isn't exactly old even though it may have felt that way at the time.

I'll say this, I don't think the increase in the number of these guys and the prevalence of social media is a coincidence. Some guys figure out how to talk to girls and find relationships easily. Some take more time, figuring out first how to just be friends before getting to the relationship step. Some, like myself, had to figure these things out then continue to push past repeated rejection before figuring out how to attract a girl.

There's a dynamic to it....no one formula for success....and I genuinely believe it takes real face to face interaction. There's so much to communication that is non-verbal....it's told in body language and expressions. These days, social media has cut out a lot of that. I think these guys get rejected early on....and instead of learning and growing....they regress to a point where they only have online interactions. These inevitably fail....because they're too defensive, insecure, guarded to accept criticism and they're unable to read any real time body language. They're left in this sort of infantile thinking of "I complimented her, told her how impressive I am, sent her a pic of my genitalia, why won't she sleep with me?".


That's not how things work in the real world....but these guys have checked out of the real world. Their interactions are mainly online and mainly superficial. They end up finding each other and commiserating with each other in a sort of pattern of failure. It may be a string of rejections, anxiety or other mood disorders, or autism spectrum issues that got them there....but they almost certainly need help from loved ones to get out of that point.

In some cases, that might mean taking them to see a therapist, counselor, or psychologist. It might mean finding a male their age (a cousin, friend, or the like) that they could model their behavior after till they get some confidence (which is probably ideal but not often possible). I suppose in cases where parents notice it early enough....and it's probably hard to know if such things are a phase....get them offline and engaged in some real activity. It could be a sport, it could be chess club, it could be learning a foreign language. I tend to think that activities where one can feel a sense of self improvement or achievement are better than nuetral activities like going to the zoo or a museum.

That's it...it largely sounds like just being there for them and being concerned about their emotional development is the main thing. I think it's easier to let boys slip off into self isolation and compounding personal issues these days than it is for girls. Girls tend to display their problems, their inner turmoil, their emotional distress more than boys. Girls are probably more given to crying....working through their personal problems with friends....or even self harm, like cutting, than boys are. Boys are more inclined to shout "leave me alone", lock themselves in their room, and stay online for 6 hours.

 

[Paidiske]

I think there might be something to what Ana describes, for some women (leaving aside claims about feminism having achieved its goals, which it manifestly hasn't). But I think it all changes when children come along. Man #2 might be superficially sexy, and even initially have good success with dating, but he's a lousy dad and co-parent. And when you're looking at decades of time spent parenting together, that really, really does matter.

Although I'd add, as someone who finds man #2 deeply frightening, personally, I'd also say don't make the mistake of thinking all women buy into that fantasy in the first place.

I wonder, too, where the question of pornography fits into all this. How much has pornography shaped this generation of "angry men" and their expectations, in ways that just weren't possible before the internet?

 

[ChicanaRose]

DP

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think there might be something to what Ana describes, for some women (leaving aside claims about feminism having achieved its goals, which it manifestly hasn't). But I think it all changes when children come along. Man #2 might be superficially sexy, and even initially have good success with dating, but he's a lousy dad and co-parent. And when you're looking at decades of time spent parenting together, that really, really does matter.

Although I'd add, as someone who finds man #2 deeply frightening, personally, I'd also say don't make the mistake of thinking all women buy into that fantasy in the first place.

I wonder, too, where the question of pornography fits into all this. How much has pornography shaped this generation of "angry men" and their expectations, in ways that just weren't possible before the internet?

I guess we'll agree to disagree about feminism....it's not that important to the point made.

I will stress that I was describing the two men as generalized archetypes...polar opposites...not real people. Real people are more complex than that.

The funny thing is that there's a lot of research on this stuff....and it's still rather difficult to pin down what women want. Men are almost embarrassingly simple....any knowledgeable researcher could list off the physical attributes that most men find appealing. Men are generally speaking, visually attracted to women.

Women on the other hand are far more complex. You'll find studies that yield all sorts of theories. There's a lot of findings that are seemingly contradictory.....women are more attracted to a kind man....yet at the same time find a frowning man more attractive than a smiling one. It's hard to reconcile those results.

One interesting phenomenon is the "romance novel" though....because they're almost exclusively consumed by women and they feature roughly the same fantasy. The man is a high status individual, if isn't independently wealthy he's an adventurous risk taker. He's a famous surgeon, CEO, prince, pirate, rodeo cowboy, etc....not an office worker, or mathematician, or gardener. He's got classical masculine features, he's tall, muscular but not a bodybuilder, strong, square jawed....not short, pudgy or skinny, or bald or soft voiced. The guy follows a pattern that typically involves him being aloof or indifferent to the female....even standoffish. He'll insist why they cannot be together or even try to create a situation where they cannot be together ...then fall to his undeniable attraction/passion for her. He is at the same time sexually aggressive and even forceful....yet paradoxically gentle and considerate. The man then changes from being aloof and distant to protective/possessive.

I won't go into more detail but there are a few other common characteristics. Yes, it's fantasy. Yes, I understand that women aren't necessarily seeking these things. It does however, provide insight into what turns women on....generally speaking. If we had to describe him in few words they'd be aggressive, dominant, protective, passionate.

My point here is that when you consider the kind of man that is exaggerated in these novels, in these fantasies, it's a rather stark contrast between the man that women claim they wish more men were like. They overlap in very few ways....but are dissimilar in many ways.

I'd stress, this isn't really women's fault. What a woman may want in a man at the moment isn't necessarily what she wants in him long term. What she wants in a man in a romantic relationship is a burden in every man she doesn't want a relationship with.

This is nuance that guys generally have to figure out through relationships and dating...both romantic and platonic relationships. There's a couple of things that are working against men these days though....

1. Social media and it's ability to reduce face to face interaction.
2. This narrative about toxic masculinity, patriarchy, and power dynamics that insists women want a more submissive, subdued, gentle, emotionally expressive, gentler man.

I think any man who has most of his interactions with women online will have a difficult time. Any man who genuinely buys into #2 narratives will have an extremely difficult time. That's leading to a lot of the friction between the sexes at the moment.

 

[Noxot]

For me anger persist when I'm trapped or feel trapped. Being/feeling disenfranchised would probably keep one angry.

Not succeeding could mean death, especially in ancient days. so anger could have been the thing that helped men to overcome.

But a weak male that is angry could quickly find out that he can get killed by other males. in today's time that is less likely to happen and so now you got more incels that are angry. Or they are now safer to express their anger rather than hide it.

 

[Noxot]

Being weak and angry is good if you can conform to the strongest/biggest group of humans. You might still get spoils that way, or at least survive and come up with some way to get a mate (or gain strong allies) such as creativity, wealth or deception. But you would still have to control your anger sometimes.

but now if a weak and angry person conforms to a group they don't conquer other tribes and take the women. So if they don't have other methods then they are trapped. Plus they will be extra angry that they conformed and still did not win.

No doubt some of the weaker males ended up becoming bisexual.

 

[Kalevalatar]

One of the explanations offered is the end of World War II when traumatized men, who'd put their lives on hold for 3-5 years to serve their country, returned home to find that women had -- had had to -- taken up traditional male jobs. The women, finally with money of their own, weren't ready to return back to the kitchen and the men felt the society owed them a job and a living. So it was kind of like two dogs, one bone.

Here in Finland, it's somewhat different. A small nation of 3.5 million people fought an existential battle against a much more powerful invader of 170 million people, so every pair of hands regardless of gender was needed, also after the war, to rebuild the country and to pay for the extremely harsh war reparations. There was too much work and too few people.

Here in Finland and in Northern Europe in general, male anger has more to do with our social democratic model, which, in a way, has served our societies too well, if you will. The social democratic model offers everyone an equal opportunity in life regardless of gender, socio-economic circumstances etc. We not only offer tuition-free higher education but actually pay a monthly stipend for every student, in addition to housing allowance, inexpensive health care, housing, meals... Thus, if you fail to grab the opportunity and fail to make something of yourself and become a productive member of the society, it's basically your own fault. Your poor family finances or the address of your childhood home or the hue of your skin or not knowing the right people have nothing to do with it. The society offers you all the tools to make it, but it's up to you to make your own fortune with the help of those tools.

And yet we have a class of angry men who for some reason have decided to settle for the seemingly easy life of doing nothing while collecting the benefits we offer to guarantee a minimum lifestyle for everyone. When you are a twenty-year-old young and naive lad, the "free" money may seem like a fortune and pity those who are slaving to study or learn a trade when you can earn the same money doing nothing! Right? Fast forward ten years, you're a thirty-year-old adult and your age-mates are getting married, building their first homes, changing to better cars and buying vacation homes by the lake, while you get just enough of benefits to pay the rent and feed yourself. Suddenly life seems unfair. They have everything and you have nothing. At fifty, it doesn't get better, the achievement and standard of living gap only gets wider.

What's more, no money, no girls. Studies show that women prefer partners who have at least the same level or higher education, ditto earnings. And the fact is that already Finnish women are better educated than men, which greatly complicates the marriage market. Successful men with high educational attainment have their pick and are the ones having the most babies, whereas undereducated men get left behind.

So who do they blame? Do they take a good hard look in the mirror and re-examine their own choices? Or do they blame the women for stealing all the good jobs in addition to being to picky to sleep with less successful men? Do they blame the "foreigners" for stealing their jobs and their college place and their women and their social benefit and their tax money? Do they blame the "liberals" and "elitists" for treating them unfairly?

We do know who they do not blame -- corrupt capitalism. The populist politicians have made a very thorough job at capitalizing the undereducated and underachieving male anger, but not by highlighting the income equality and the 1% vs the rest of us, but by telling that the women, the immigrants, the foreigners, the EU, the traditional centre-left, the liberals are to blame -- everyone else but the men themselves and the male billionaires who these angry underachieving men regard as their idols.

So what can be done about it? Here in Finland, we have found that there is still something about our much-praised education system that favors the more academic ways girls tend to learn vs. the more active by-doing ways of the boys, coupled with the "boys will be boys" attitude that is doing a great disservice to boys by placing the bar lower than for girls. We are calibrating our pedagogy to ensure that boys don't get left behind. Also, we have established comprehensive youth and training guarantee schemes so that each young person under 25 and recently graduated people under 30 will be offered a job, a traineeship, a study place, a workshop or other forms of activity instead of unemployment and the option of "doing nothing." Self-fulfillment and the sense of belonging and being an important stakeholder in your community and in our society is the very antidote against angry men who feel left behind and outside.

 

[bèlla]

Being the selfish person that I am I'm never angry, as I see to it that I get what I want. Anger is "thwarted self-will".

I think we’re all a little selfish but I hope we’re selfless to so e degree. I am very driven. My greatest goals have little to do with me. They’re related to God and future descendants.

Everyone should make sure they achieve their personal desires. We only go around once, best to make the most of it for ourselves.

I have a bucket list and I’m working through it. But the quality of life I’ve lived en route is equally important. Impacting others and providing assistant when needed are part of a well rounded life in my opinion.

If your job, friends, or girl friend/boy friend threatens to sabotage your plans and desires say bye bye.

I think its more prudent to make wise selections in our work and friendships to alleviate the disposal you’re suggesting.

Faith altered the landscape of my life. Should I set aside God because He threatened my plans?

 

[bèlla]

I’ll put it to you this way. I live with my wife and we have a friend we live with as well. Both are huge on women’s rights and will get extremely angry if you insinuate a man can do something a female can’t.

Why do they get angry? Do they feel personally insulted?

Men are societally expected to do more physical labor and handle certain things, and we can’t get angry about it. My wife however is allowed to get angry over anything because her “emotions” are up and down because she’s a woman.

I don’t agree with that. It would make for an unpleasant atmosphere if both were carried away with their emotions and excused for their sex. Women know how to control themselves.

 

[bèlla]

One thing that I need to be careful with when I say that I want to help someone to manage his anger, is not to fall into the trap of feeling responsible for someone else's inexplicable or irrational anger.

This should be done with a professional. You will often bear the brunt of their upset. Even when you’re trying to help. You don’t want to become a punching bag.

If this is a partner the situation is more serious. You will see sides of his persona others won’t. In this case, you need to gauge his reaction style. What does he do when angered and how does he calm down? This is where strong male accountability comes in.