Angry Men

[bèlla]

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.

I knew a woman who worked in the construction industry and she echoed the same. It took a while before they accepted her and she had to fight for certain benefits more than others.

 

[bèlla]

This has left modern feminism with little more to do than criticize men.

I honestly feel things have gone too far. Maligning men and boys as if they’re a danger to society or the fairer sex is too much and I don’t agree with their rhetoric.

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.

There is nothing attractive about effeminate men. A man can emote without mimicking a woman. And he shouldn’t have to diminish his manhood to appease.

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.

All of the above. That is my ideal! But I’m encountering overly sensitive men lacking confidence and the presence of manliness. There’s no tooth.

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.

That book was very popular in secular and religious circles. Christian women devoured it. I’ve read it. Make no mistake; he’s nuts. But the alternative is just as maddening. I like a very defined male energy. I may need help and prayer. ;-)

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.

I really love your insight! I’ve exclusively dated number two. We get along well because I value the difference and need it. I don’t threaten his manhood. I’m not a feminist. My femininity complements his masculinity.

But when I came to faith I no longer met men like that. Most were number ones and the dichotomy was difficult. We agreed on faith but I felt no draw to his essence. It didn’t resonate and the difference was frustrating. It felt feminine but I couldn’t say that without causing offense.

And its true the incels and men’s movements are in response to the wrongs they believe are perpetrated on their sex. I’ve talked to many to hear their point of view.

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.

Men who behave like number one are automatically considered friends or acquaintances. I’m not sexually attracted to them and can never be.

This is why friends first doesn’t work in my mind. I’ve never picked from that group. I consider that approach to be cowardly and a way to minimize rejection. I see no benefit of befriending someone you’re interested in. Just ask her out.

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.

That’s true. I remember a thread in the single’s forum that confirms this. Many of the men admitted they were dating according to women’s preferences. They (the women) wanted to be friends first and that was their approach.

I thought it was nuts if that wasn’t true for them. Then I recalled asking a number two (who was interested in me) if we could be friends and he said no. And never changed his tune. It was unthinkable in his mind. I respected his willingness to stand his ground.

 

[bèlla]

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.

The Internet has helped many realize they’re not alone. There are others who think and feel the same. Both good and bad.

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.

I think that’s part if the problem. Virtual connections have become their reality. And they make no distinctions between either realm. This is real to them.

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.

I don’t think its healthy for anyone to base the whole of their communication and friendships on virtual strangers. I think they get a false sense of security and camaraderie from like-minded people who are experiencing similar issues. There’s no incentive for improvement.

When I hear of ‘friends’ they’ve conversed with for a lengthy time and never met (or attempted to do so) or speak to outside of this realm (on a frequent basis) I assume other issues are at hand.

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.

I concur. The Internet has become their jail and coping mechanism.

 

[bèlla]

Men are generally speaking, visually attracted to women.

I’ve never heard differently from any man.

One interesting phenomenon is the "romance novel" though....because they're almost exclusively consumed by women and they feature roughly the same fantasy.

That’s correct. Digital devices have made it possible for women to consume books no one knows they’re reading. The Christian responses to The 50 Shades phenomenon was the result of hearing many discuss the book. They read it on their Kindle and similar devices.

The authors had to confront some uncomfortable truths. Blaming James doesn’t alter the reality they were devouring romance novels and Amish ones too. The latter are termed ‘bodice rippers’ in the industry.

As you’ve noted, the men they’re reading about were rarely like the ones they dated or married. The idea of Christian women fantasizing (about other men) was a hard pill to swallow for some. But the data and additional evidence (The Magic Mike movie) forced the issue. I worked on the launch team for a 50 Shades rebuttal. That’s how I learned this.

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.

That’s the formula.

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.

Truth be told, I’d probably like him. He pursues his goal and makes her his. Maybe its the sense of ownership that resonates.

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.

I find those qualities very alluring. But I can’t say that holds true for all women. Especially those who’ve been abused or mistreated. But in my case that feels real, comforting, and safe.

This narrative about toxic masculinity, patriarchy, and power dynamics that insists women want a more submissive, subdued, gentle, emotionally expressive, gentler man.

I encountered this recently from both sexes. One party preached his subduing and the other exhibited it. I thought my head would explode. It was so unnatural. When men embrace this rhetoric their verbiage changes. It becomes flowery and sentimental like a woman’s.

 

[bèlla]

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.

I’ve heard a similar argument and I think there’s a lot of truth in that suggestion.

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.

That is the perspective that’s put forth in America. If you have opted against education or some form of training and made no effort to improve your life you’re to blame.

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.

I’m glad you mentioned this. Many are under the errant belief that provision means all able-bodied members participate. But that’s never the case.

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.

That’s true. I didn’t dream of becoming the bread winner for my family. No one does.

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.

Thank you for sharing. It was enlightening to hear how you’re addressing these challenges.

 

[Paidiske]

That’s true. I didn’t dream of becoming the bread winner for my family. No one does.

I realise that we're sharing different experiences and perspectives, and don't want to come across as arguing with you, exactly, but I think even here mileage varies enormously.

I didn't "dream" of becoming the bread winner for my family (didn't dream of having a family, honestly; was absolutely terrified of becoming a mother at all); but over the years my husband and I have done different things, and I am hands-down unequivocally most happy in the arrangement where I'm the bread winner. I hate being dependent on someone else, and am terrified of "What if something happens to him and I have no fall back?"

So I didn't set out to deliberately look for a husband who would let me support him, but I chose a man who had personality traits that means that in fact, that's what we do, and we're both content with it.

I did like @Kalevalatar's point about community involvement and contribution. If we look at ourselves just as individuals or even married couples, we're always going to have issues; but we're built to be part of something bigger than that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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'll readily admit that I have anger issue(s). In fact, it goes beyond that. But to keep things on a smoother, finer, more academic plane of discussion, if you want a metaphor for what is going on inside my head, the how and the why, then maybe just watch the first [somewhat cheesy] Ghost Rider movie starring Nicholas Cage, and I think you'll better understand my ... *ahem* ... "feelings" about my place in the world. But remember, it's just a metaphor for the real 2PhiloVoid.

But as far as men's anger goes all around in more general, even sociological and Christian, terms, I'd say ... let's all just morally clean up our society from all of the filthy crap that exudes itself in every crevice of society and in our social morays ... and maybe, just maybe, that will alleviate men of about half of the anger they experience. (What? You say "the cat has been out of the bag" for way too long and there's no going back, nor can we expect any real progressive moral reforms going forward? Oh, well. What a quandary for frustrated men in a society who think climate change could have been avoided).

Then again, the following doesn't help matters either:

All those female chauvinists pigs of....today's Raunch Culture?!

 

[Kalevalatar]

I didn't "dream" of becoming the bread winner for my family (didn't dream of having a family, honestly; was absolutely terrified of becoming a mother at all); but over the years my husband and I have done different things, and I am hands-down unequivocally most happy in the arrangement where I'm the bread winner. I hate being dependent on someone else, and am terrified of "What if something happens to him and I have no fall back?"

So I didn't set out to deliberately look for a husband who would let me support him, but I chose a man who had personality traits that means that in fact, that's what we do, and we're both content with it.

There is clearly a cultural divide between the "American Dream" and perhaps, the rest of us, or at least, between the Nordic egalitarianism I'm a product of. The United States is extremely focused on wealth, much more so than us. We have this concept of lagom, enough, not too much and not too little. The United States is also much more conservative when it comes traditional gender roles and women's role and participation in society. A well-known Finnish foreign correspondent in Washington, D.C., recently published an article about her personal experience as a professional Finnish woman in the United States: "In the States, I'm a man: a Finnish woman realizes that were she an American woman, she would think, talk, and act wholly differently and more like a stereotypical woman."

Like you, the idea of a husband to support me and to be dependent on him and his money and the pocket money he'd give me, would be unthinkable to me. We are a typical Finnish couple: even after decades of marriage, we still keep separate finances. Apparently, less than 30% of American couples keep their money separate, whereas in Finland, less than 15% have joint accounts. Huge cultural difference.

@Ana the 1st mentioned American romance novels, which are an interesting subject to study and gauge society's ideas and ideals of men, women, partnership, marriage and roles. Thing is, however, that American romance novels don't sell here. While in the US markets, millionaires are no longer enough but have to be (self-made, naturally) billionaires, in Finland, it's enough that the hero is a comfortably middle-class doctor or manager or construction worker; a salaried professional who doesn't need to be the owner of the company. It's enough that he supports himself and can change the light bulb without an army of hired people at hand.

Extreme wealth is seen as unheroic. If the hero can buy anything and everything to make his life as easy as possible, that is not seen as "manly" but as pampered. Gold faucets and exclusive silk bedsheet do not translate as tokens of "manliness" in Finnish. Okay, so he can fly the heroine for a romantic dinner in Rome with his private jet, but as a billionaire the gesture costs him almost nothing and requires virtually nothing from him, since he has people to arrange everything for him. He has people to clean up after him and make things happen. Compare to, say, "Hawkeye/Nathaniel Poe," a hero and a Man who is self-sufficient and knows how to hunt his own food and where to seek shelter. In Finland, chopping the wood and carrying the water for a lakeside sauna with no plumping woud be more like it, and the hero doesn't have to be fabulously wealthy to do that. Just have some muscle on him.

Similarly, military heroes, fetishized by the US market, do not sell here. We have conscription. Just about every man here has a military rank, compared to the <2% of Americans who sign up to serve their country.

 

[durangodawood]

....Extreme wealth is seen as unheroic......Finland, chopping the wood and carrying the water for a lakeside sauna with no plumping woud be more like it, and the hero doesn't have to be fabulously wealthy to do that. Just have some muscle on him...

I think the American Way of living on the financial edge and swimming in debt is somewhat emasculating. Add in the health care guillotine where even the insured can be financially broken by unforseen expenses....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

I'm not so driven or assertive. I like to do my best then let the game come to me. This has worked very well for me.

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.

I tend to focus on a few enjoyable activities; no bucket list per se. I live a Spartan lifestyle, saving up for a few bigger scores when I retire. I also prefer to help others without getting personally involved with them (the check is in the mail).

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?

My life, and plans are a blessing from God. That's why I'm a happy camper.

 

[ChicanaRose]

What does he do when angered and how does he calm down? This is where strong male accountability comes in.

I agree. Saying sorry to keep the peace may be okay for trivial matters (i.e. pick your battles) but probably not for serious matters, even if you being "wrong" is the only way he will calm down.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. Saying sorry to keep the peace may be okay for trivial matters (i.e. pick your battles) but probably not for serious matters, even if you being "wrong" is the only way he will calm down.

I for one believe in community accountability; we're ALL accountable, and we're all at fault when we try to shuffle the blame for ALL of what goes into some problem off to some other party. Very rarely is a severe social problem the fault of just "one individual," let alone just a mere man.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Any job the defeminizes a women should be avoided, imso (in my sexist opinion).

 

[ChicanaRose]

I for one believe in community accountability; we're ALL accountable, and we're all at fault when we try to shuffle the blame for ALL of what goes into some problem off to some other party. Very rarely is a severe social problem the fault of just "one individual," let alone just a mere man.

I agree with this statement.

In my particular example, I was referring to irrational anger where someone blames you for something not within your control.

 

[ChicanaRose]

DP

 

[2PhiloVoid]

DP

In those cases, I'll agree that men often seem to have the lion's share in over-expressing their anger, specifically toward women and in destructive ways. But on the other hand, I think that prophetic iteration needs to be applied to both men and women, and it seems that it's often only the men who are cited as being in need of prophetic correction.

But yes, men cause a lot of the deeper problems and they often set up the means by which deviant structures in society are built. And men should be blamed to some extent for all or much of this, whether just in relationships between men and women or in the way they failingly 'lead' politically and corporately in business. (Here, an example of failure would be iconically: Hugh Hefner. Just thinking about him makes me sick).

 

[durangodawood]

Any job the defeminizes a women should be avoided, imso (in my sexist opinion).

My sense is that this is typically a weak-male desire.

Its a male attitude held to preserve one's diminished sense of masculinity in the face of female achievement that threatens to eclipse one's own.

 

[bèlla]

I realise that we're sharing different experiences and perspectives, and don't want to come across as arguing with you, exactly, but I think even here mileage varies enormously.

I don’t think that at all.

I hate being dependent on someone else, and am terrified of "What if something happens to him and I have no fall back?"

This is going to look different for everyone. I worked in a lucrative industry and I’m self-employed now. I’m responsible for my welfare. As are most single adults.

But I’ve also raised a child and face different issues than most. I can’t make two sets of rules. I must practice what I preach. I have financial obligations to her and her future children when she marries (of my own volition).

Some men are comfortable in the situation you described. But others aren’t. The ones I date won’t have it. They enjoy providing for their partner. And I won’t take that away from them.

I’m in my forties now. I don’t see life the way others do who married earlier. I’m dating after the hard stuff was done. My considerations are quite different from the person desiring to raise a family.

 

[MehGuy]

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.

Hmmm.. my first question is about how "angry" modern men really are. I think like many things, our society likes to spice up lame western men into being more dangerous and "barbarian" than they really are. In the past we had wars where we could paint the opposing side as ugly monsters (often racially insensitive) wanting to harm our women. Now we feel the urge to portray fat lonely nerds who live in their mother's basement as wanting to harm our women, lol.

I would argue our culture has a "masculine" and "feminine" energy shortage. Probably partly due to our comfortable lifestyle and our increased ability to analyze our own psychology. We are not going through the motions like our ancestors did. Despite how emotionally alluring they may be for many people.

Sure there is an "incel" problem, but it is one I think always existed, just that in the past these men who are at the bottom of the barrel did not have the means to be heard. The vast majority of men do not have this mindset. Plus I see more and more women jumping into the "female incel" mindset". I do wonder how my generation of women will handle when they are in their late 30s and up.

I think there is something softer than anger going on, more of a sadness and feeling of "what is the point?" Many men in my generation grew up in single parent household where women were the majority of the main custody holders and the fathers had to go live somewhere else away from their kids. Our society doesn't view fatherhood in a high light. Couple with the fact that we teach children to expand beyond their gender roles, men like women want to challenge how they live their lives. Despite whether men are using or even aware of the term, many are probably veering towards MGTOW. Something that will only compound as they get older.

It is what it is. Things change. Growing pains might hurt, but I think it is ultimately a positive thing.

 

[bèlla]

I'll readily admit that I have anger issue(s).

How do you address them in light of your faith?

But as far as men's anger goes all around in more general, even sociological and Christian, terms, I'd say ... let's all just morally clean up our society from all of the filthy crap that exudes itself

You attribute a portion of their anger to our moral climate. Do you think that’s the ideal response?

I’m familiar with raunch culture and related subcultures. I’ve known some interesting people on both sides.