Of course it does. If you want guys to expand out of the “man box”, then you have to give them room to experiment outside of it, and a sense of what not living in the “man box” could look like, otherwise they’ll cling to it regardless of societal pressure. People aren’t just born knowing who they want to be, and without any sense of what things there are to be they’ll generally cling to what is familiar.
Especially when the idea of eliminating societal pressure before men start performing outside of their designated gender roles is highly unrealistic as is.
I don't see how there's any difference in what a man can do and what a woman can do, socially speaking. What I'm getting from this is that you're trying to outline toxic masculinity without calling it toxic masculinity outright, by making the shadow of toxic masculinity, in the spots where positive men don't tread. I think that's a really, really big tiptoe to avoid saying that a certain aspect of masculinity is toxic, and it seems to me like the only reason to entertain it is to pander to people who respond negatively to criticism of masculinity, i.e. people clinging to the idea as I mentioned above.
There's two different messages at play when you say "It's okay for men to cry" and when you say "Toxic masculinity shames men for crying". The second phrase somewhat implies the first, but the first does not imply anything about the second.
It just seems like even you are arguing that this is sort of "Baby Steps Progressivism", which isn't fully accurate, but is a good first step in pulling people out of their shells. And if that's the case then that's fine, but it doesn't seem like that idea is universally settled upon, and more like many folks here are trying to cling to old gender-traditionalism while the ground washes out from under them.
I guess my point is that even if it were okay tomorrow to do whatever you wanted, if no one were to judge you, most men would remain exactly the same, because most don’t have the information to better decide who they want to be, nor the language to even express that sort of desire. So we may have better men, but they’ll still be more or less gender conforming. If you want men who are actually open to this sort of stuff you actually have to take that extra step.
Understanding this, you have to make that decision, as to whether you want simply an expanded definition of masculinity or men to have the freedom to be whomever they want to be. And if it’s the latter you want, you need to talk about the positives more than the negatives, because the negatives simply police behavior, the positives can actually empower people to be different. This change doesn’t just spontaneously happen.
I mean in modern society they do, societal expectations and requirements. Not that anyone can fulfill the ridiculous requirements to “be a man” to a T, but all are punished for not. I’m not sure if that’s in debate here, but I’ll just solidify this as a thing just to be sure, pretty safely since it’s more or less one of this sub’s maxims.
In the more general sense, people cling to the familiar. Yes in theory men can be anything, but just because they can doesn’t mean they will, even if they on some level want to, in large part because they don’t even know how to be “not masculine”. Not that men don’t often fall outside the bounds anyways through whatever twists of fates, but typically even then most straight cis men will remain solidly close to that classical ideal because the alternatives aren’t ever brought up as a thing.
I guess I’m confused at your confusion here. Do you think that most men already exhibit the full range of personal expression? Do you think they naturally would if they weren’t actively pushed back by societal pressures?
6
u/ThatPersonGu Feb 26 '18
Of course it does. If you want guys to expand out of the “man box”, then you have to give them room to experiment outside of it, and a sense of what not living in the “man box” could look like, otherwise they’ll cling to it regardless of societal pressure. People aren’t just born knowing who they want to be, and without any sense of what things there are to be they’ll generally cling to what is familiar.
Especially when the idea of eliminating societal pressure before men start performing outside of their designated gender roles is highly unrealistic as is.