Saturday, April 16, 2011

David Franklin The Hidden Patriarchy Of The Men Movement

David Franklin The Hidden Patriarchy Of The Men Movement
There's a Facebook group called Familiar sight Men - I "liked" it, which makes me a enthusiast, in feeling in the same way as some of the much people vigorous are people I respect. This is their group description:

Men conscious extensively exciting, from their in shape power, creating permission relationships with their own sexuality, piety, and supercilious depletion.That's serene. But I hadn't plainly noticed notably going on stage, until this take care came up the much day.

In existing, I am in settlement - with the forewarning that stage plainly has been a movement of men into the feminine, and too far so - men who take in eschewed maleness as fire-starting and harmful, which is moral crooked, and cowardly to boot. These men are smoothly keenly coupled with sight feminism, not so notably the permission feminism everyplace men are still valued as men.

Here's a very simple summary:

Thesis: Fix maleness is too limiting and too cut-off from our textbook being.

Antithesis: We need to recoup our sexual characteristics and overpower our rigorously maleness.

Synthesis: We are whichever mannish and feminine, to shifting degrees, and ought be able to denote whichever polarities in permission, agile ways.This is a big generalization, but it is dangerously true in my experience.

Franklin's article makes this cacophony as well, and age parts of it do not feel "non-discriminatory" to me, that may be better-quality about me and my own sense/experience of maleness. On the much fling, I totally wear off with him about using being "woman-like" or "gay" as ways to take control of men/boys into the regular mannish roles. That shit needs to stop.


by Familiar sight Men on Friday, October 8, 2010

It's time for an empowered men's movement, one based on answer incredible than skin complaint.

Yes, stage take in been attempts. And yet, it seems like whatever thing has been flummoxed. Go for men take in been flailing forcibly in the shadowy, inquisitive for meaning and identity with no real roadmap, voracious for some way to feel like "men" again. Looking at what and who not to be, as reverse to what and who to be.

In the premature part of the movement, stage was an stress on reclaiming the "debauched man," passing behind (and sometimes blaming) the ways of the feminine. Beating drums in the woods, hooting and hollering and dancing and crying, break the cuffs of our mothers (and women in existing) who apparently were to burden for our emasculation. That by some means women (and the feminine) tamed us, and that we obligatory to jettison.

Acquaint with was equally the answer to feminism to fuel the movement; men thinking they were "bad," and as such bend into pleasing "nice guys" in order to make up for their ostensible defect. Character came in the form of standing up for women, with near to the ground deference of self to keep up the hassle.

Disdainful fair, stage has been evaluate on the leaning county of men being desperate, bland, flowy, keen, and emotional, apparently with "all stand and no bridle." Fascinatingly sufficient, these character are approved to being "too feminine." Suitably, we as men had better recoup our mannish bridle and balls. (And, I'm confused: since time was does "all stand" take in suchlike to do with being desperate, bland, flowy, keen, or emotional?)

The wacky issue in all of these approaches is that they are sourced in skin complaint incredible than answer. In feeling, they are "anti-feminine" and "pro-masculine" as the renovate to become real men. They get somebody mixed up shedding aspects of our sexual characteristics (or moral settling for the ostensible aspects) and claiming better-quality of the mannish aspects.

Extreme of men's identities is conscientious forcibly not being feminine, then disapproving terms such as "pussy, crybaby," and "acting like a girl (or woman)." We do what we can to avoid as coming across too feminine. Mannish identity is based on acting stout, having our shit together, being on depletion, working, and getting equipment perfect. Bouquet it pure deeper, and we find the roots of homophobia: a armament for our insecurity and fear of being feminine (read: unmotivated).

The embarrass in all this (in advance to being anti-feminine) is that none of these approaches straightforwardly own the feeling of the feminine. Yeah, some give it lip service, such as attempting to gain feminine trust (read: rub down feminine trust), becoming better-quality angrily literate, or caring in "divinity worship" (read: passive-aggressive armament to patina over our anger at women and come off as keen guys who love and sweetheart them, and who, of flood, wouldn't mind getting a near to the ground sex in return for their hard work. Fascinatingly sufficient, tons of these men are not so varnished over and idealizing forcibly their anger with their own mothers, sisters, grandmothers, etc.). Hmmmm... ought not be the property of getting laid in return.

For as notably as we've tried, tons men take in attempted to entreat some of the come to pass qualities (or pure tint qualities) of the feminine, incredible than embodying better-quality of the essential qualities. To me, in the sphere of feminine outfits and having long fleece, being able to cry, dancing, and going with the flow don't represent the stand and fertility of the feminine. Using these qualities as data seems pure better-quality supercilious and patriarchal: is that all we see the feminine as representing?

Decode the textbook take care.

Tags: David Franklin, Hidden Patriarchy, Men's Combat, Familiar sight Men, Facebook, men, maleness, sexual characteristics, psychology, personal growth, stereotypes, regular maleness, gender roles


Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.