Source
r/MensLib•
antonfire

Fragility of Masculinity and Fragility of Femininity

There’s a thought floating around that men are subject to a lot of anxiety at failing to live up to traditional cultural standards of manhood and losing status, and that this drives a lot of "masculine" behavior, for better or for worse. (That fragile masculinity is a thing.) In rough terms, this is the feeling that one’s masculinity is at constant risk of being "lost" by making a wrong move. "I’m not a real man if I don’t ..."

Often when people talk about this I get the impression that they’re operating from a place that contrasts what goes on with masculinity with what goes on with femininity. (E.g. the article in this thread.)

Broadly speaking, this contrast doesn’t ring true to me. I think the idea that women lose status if they don’t perform femininity correctly is alive and well, and drives a lot of 'feminine' behavior.

There are some differences, but I see them as quantitative, not qualitative.

One difference is that women "performing masculinity" is generally somewhat more accepted than men "performing femininity". (Arguably because "performing masculinity" is also "performing high status".) It seems like there’s more room for women to eschew traditional femininity than there is for men to eschew traditional masculinity, at least in the world I occupy.

But "more room" doesn’t really mean "a lot of room". And in the mainstream that room strikes me as pretty superficial and contingent anyway. The thing that’s rewarded for women is often ultimately still performing femininity, just with a masculine twist. (Picture any story about a tomboyish girl who finds her feminine side when she "blossoms into a woman".) That contingency is there for men too; we want a sensitive man, as long as he'll still beat a bad guy up when shit hits the fan.

Another difference is that fragile masculinity is seen as driving a whole lot of shitty toxic behavior (homophobia, risk-taking, misogyny) and upholding patriarchy, and the analogue for femininity doesn’t play the same role. Who’s attempts to affirm their femininity have ever hurt anyone? My impression is that this still happens, though not to the same degree. Certainly woman A can enforce femininity on woman B and contribute to harm that way, though maybe that’s different. (Googling "fragile femininity" brings up some accounts of roughly that.)

So, what’s the story?

How good is the analogy between fragile masculinity and some gender-flipped "fragile femininity"? Are there crucial differences that make it misleading to think of these as the same sort of thing?

Posted Sep 4, 2021, 4:28 AM UTC · edited

25557
JunonsHopeful​•

Are there crucial differences that make it misleading to think of these as the same sort of thing?

I don't think so.

I really liked your point about the "space" for women to be masculine being bigger but not very big still and I totally agree with this. A good practical example is contrasting women taking on masculine-associated personality traits like assertiveness and women taking on masculine-associated clothing; the clothing is typically accepted for the most part (there are some exceptions though) but personality traits where men would be labelled 'assertive' women are still so often labelled 'bossy' or 'bitchy'.

129
PantsDancing​•

I really liked your point about the "space" for women to be masculine being bigger but not very big still

Yeah this rings true for me too. I think for some things the attractiveness of the woman can have an effect. And i think when people consider things being "easier" for women they are only picuring attractive women and not thinking about how most women dont fit that mold. (Im not at all suggesting that being attractive shields women from patriarchy though).

One example is being romatically/sexually assertive. That might work fine for a confident and traditionally attractive woman, but most women will have a much bigger challenge taking on the assertive role in a romantic dynamic.

Another example is eating a lot. I read an article a while back that talked about how a big appetite in a woman was a turn on for men but only if the woman was traditionally attractive and it was a turn off if she was not traditionally attractive.

66
myalt08831​•

I also notice that "strong/fit women" are inspirational on the socials, especially if still conventionally feminine looking (soft curves, maybe toned looking, or maybe abs and no other obvious muscles), but women with low body fat and a hard-cut or bulky aesthetic, which is optimal for a lot of sports, or can be done just for aesthetic/personal reasons, they are sometimes judged as "looking like a man" and trash-talked. (See also any sport where women tend to wear high-compression sport bras and loose-fit jerseys, and be rather lean, because running around.)

Or "woman wearing a blazer" is aspirational girlboss stuff, whereas woman wearing a full dapper men's-style suit and a short haircut is gay and might get the side-eye.

I'm not saying one thing is better than the other, but one thing is judged more than the other.

50
fenrix222​•

As a woman who dresses and presents in a masculine way, I feel like it is only broadly accepted if you're not completely masculine. You need a little femininity in there, earrings or some makeup for people to find it "normal".

13
chriswoods01​•

I particularly like your thought that equates manliness with status and how women can gain status with masculine behaviour, but men loose status with many feminine behaviours. This is an important aspect of where the work needs to go to create a more equal society.

However I have an example of where women doing feminine behaviour can be problematic to men.

The mother of my son was so invested in being the mom that she made it very difficult for me to be a good dad. I have had to constantly push hard to get time with my son, and I'm far from alone in this.

Being a mother was such a big part of her self image that for at least the first 10 years of my sons life, she couldn't imagine how important it is for me to be a good dad, and to leave room for that. There are many men who are currently prevented from being a really positive influence on their kids, potentially passing issues down the generations.

81
hendrixski​•

The mother of my son was so invested in being the mom that she made it very difficult for me to be a good dad. I have had to constantly push hard to get time with my son, and I'm far from alone in this.

This speaks directly to the hearts of many millions of men. We can't build the bonds with our kids because we're pushed out of the way.

36
[deleted]•

[deleted]

16
Banegard​•

^ this exactly

4
Banegard​•

I particularly like your thought that equates manliness with status and how women can gain status with masculine behaviour, but men loose status with many feminine behaviours.

What‘s interesting about this, though, is how narrow that opportunity to perform masculinity is for women.
True, women can gain status in certain situations, like communicating in a ‚male‘ style in business.
But other situations can have the opposite effect.

Think tomboys, who are deemed „shy wallflowers that need more selfesteem“ when young and „boring & unattractive“ when they get older.
Or the experience of trans men. These vary of course, but I got a lot of backlash early on for „acting like a boy“. Appraisal was rare to come by. Most of my traits that didn’t conform to femininity were deemed offputting, too aggressive, strange or provocative.

I wonder if women really have more opportunities as men to perform traits associated with the opposite gender, or if the few they have are more valued and more valuable in practice.

10
chriswoods01​•

Its really sad that you got backlash just for being yourself. Sounds really rough. I can't and don't try to speak for the trans experience being a 40yo white cis man! All I can do is listen and try to hear and understand.

What was in my head was what the reaction of all of my colleagues would be if I turned up at work in a blouse and skirt or summer dress! Ridicule would be the least of it and I would loose status and rapport with all of my team, male and female. However one of the female higher up bosses regularly wears jeans and a t-shirt and others wear trouser suits without any reaction at all.

There are a few male nurses, early years teachers and secretary's, but there isn any effort to even up the numbers. However there are pretty equal numbers of male and female doctors which used to be an exclusively male profession. At the same time there is a massive drive here in the UK to promote STEM careers for women.

I'm not saying it's bad to promote gender parity for higher status jobs, I'm just saying that there is work to do in other areas.

6
Banegard​•

Thx. Yeah I get where you went with that and agree with the observation.

My point was that there seems to be a selection of gender non-conforming actions for each that can either positively or negatively effect our status in society.
I think being aware of this selection process can help quicken progress. The current discourse seems to miss this point and your examples made me aware of it.
Like- why are stay at home dads slowly raising in perception, but men in nursing jobs still neglected, like you said. It‘s an odd imbalance, come to think of it.
Why are women adopting male speaking patterns in a business context framed positive, but framed negative in a private context?

Like you said, it seems we need more work in different areas and „women acting like men = positive; men acting like women = bad“ is a distracting simplification.

Frankly, it also puts me at ease to know that women can‘t just imitate any male behavior and profit from it, while I can only loose by exhibiting female behavior.

6
LeslieDiabolical​•

women “performing masculinity” is generally somewhat more accepted than men “performing femininity”. (Arguably because “performing masculinity” is also “performing high status”.)

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I think this is a really key point that I’d like to expand on.

I’m of the opinion that while popular feminism has empowered women to pursue careers (plenty of working class women have always had jobs, but jobs and careers are two different things), it has failed to challenge the received patriarchal wisdom of what ambition and success looks like. Instead, it has created incentives and ideals that encourage raising girls to be more like men.

The intersection of capitalism and patriarchy has gone largely unchallenged, except on the bare minimum that, yes, now a woman can overcome the barriers in place to achieve capitalist success, but in order to do that she must conform as closely as possible to the behaviours and traits of a patriarchal dominator. I’m fairly sure this is more to do with behaviour than presentation.

I’ve worked with plenty of women who use an assertive or even aggressive communication style at work. They often come in to conflict with dominant men, and when those clashes happen they see themselves as being a strong feminist standing up for herself against the patriarchy. Watching from the outside and being a very conflict-averse person myself, it often looks more like two controlling and patriarchal people vying for the position of dominance, and there’s very little feminist about it even if one of them’s a woman.

I’m well aware that there’s a possibility that I’ve perceived women as more aggressive than men based on the same behaviours and readily admit that I need to reflect on this more. However, I also dated one of those women and she was a patriarchal and narcissistic abuser who fundamentally believed in dominance and hierarchy within relationships, so I’ve had a very difficult first hand lesson in how women are capable of exalting and imitating the worst behaviours of patriarchal masculinity and are even able to rationalise it as feminist because… er… girlboss??

At its root I think the sentiment that “the girls can do anything the boys can” has maintained, and even strengthened, the core idea that masculinity IS strength and femininity IS weakness. The barometer for what a makes powerful person is still defined by patriarchal, capitalist and white supremacist standards. Except it can now be Don OR Donna Draper.

I think this is why so many girls go through an “I’m not like other girls” phase, why TERFs react especially negatively to hyper-feminine trans women and why girlboss feminism is so prevalent (even though it often wears a veneer of femininity).

It’s also why the concept of men embracing femininity is seen so negatively by so many people who are self-identified progressives/feminists, they still see femininity as weakness and don’t understand why a man would want to abandon the strength of masculinity for the weakness, passivity and fragility of femininity. It is still perceived as a step down the social ladder.

I think I have gone off on a bit of a tangent so I’ll leave it there, but I’d welcome any further thoughts.

64
xencha​•

I completely agree, 10/10 tangent.

The academic name for this brand of girl boss feminism is White Feminism, because as you said, it’s following the same patriarchal, capitalist, and white supremacist ideas but swapping the ‘him’ for ‘her’. That being said, it can be difficult to assert yourself within a patriarchal society without subscribing to its standards, so I feel some empathy there. However, that’s why we all need feminism to break that mould.

I’m a woman myself, and I think that sometimes ladies can forget that the patriarchy is not some physical enemy, but an ideology that’s automatically in everyone by virtue of living in a patriarchal society. On top of that, because women are most directly affected by patriarchy and misogyny it’s easy to identify as a victim and therefore think you’re incapable of being an aggressor as well.

24
Papplebeast​•

However, that’s why we all need feminism to break that mould.

I don't think anything can "break that mould" because everyone in a position of power, regardless of their integrity and intent, is corrupted by it. Also, the ultimate rule of the universe is "might makes right" (the origin of patriarchy). Civilization is just a temporary bubble where we've managed to push "might makes right" to the margins as much possible given our current wealth/technology/etc. The best we can hope to do is distribute power as much as possible.

0
Psephological​•

I’m of the opinion that while popular feminism has empowered women to pursue careers (plenty of working class women have always had jobs, but jobs and careers are two different things), it has failed to challenge the received patriarchal wisdom of what ambition and success looks like. Instead, it has created incentives and ideals that encourage raising girls to be more like men.

Completely agree with this. I realise this is an argument that's been used in bad faith a lot of the time, but I don't think the core of it is entirely wrong - there's been more focus on getting more women corporate board members, but not, say, more women garbage collectors.

The sectors that get focused on for greater gender equality tend to be those that are valued under patriarchy - and if that's the case, can we really be said to be challenging patriarchy? Gender equality is good - selectively so, and only in the sectors the system people are opposing has said are valuable? Not so good.

17
Banegard​•

Agree with those observations.

During a few seminars for business management and start ups in university, we had two women who gave us students an introduction into business communication. I was shocked to hear that her advice for women was entirely to mimick male communication styles and patterns. Not once did the address the male audience and give them advice how to accomodate female communication styles. Even her advice on business fashion for women was basically a mimicry of men‘s attire.

17
myalt08831​•

I think it's a good and meaty tangent.

I think the reason capitalism hasn't changed is that "work is life" in the Anglo/feudal tradition, which we've never really shook. "Work is life" from the perspective of feudal peasants. In the U.S. we haven't shook that at all. (Even as climbing the social ladder has become aspirational and "cool" in ways peasants never dreamed, it's become a rat race kind of thing instead, so I dunno if that's spiritually better, even if it's materially better than being a peasant.)

In Europe they've leaned more toward work-life balance. That's nice. But only radical on one dimension: "worker's rights" and all that. It's still about capitalist labor, intrinsically.

But I think a truly feminine-first society (talking in sweeping archetypes deliberately here, bear with me) would be more like the villages native peoples have (or in many places had before before being colonized). They are focused on staying alive, being spiritually attuned (with nature), and being a component part situated with nature -- being inseparable from the animals (and plants too), by way of fundamentally respecting them as equals (super radical from a capitalist perspective, I really like this personally) and being humble enough to submit to nature's domain as more of a subject or participant, not trying to be a ruler over nature itself (which I think is foolish -- climate change shows we need nature, not the other way around. Nature can live without us, etc.) I don't know why this rings as more archetypically feminine to me, because obviously there are still 50% men in aboriginal/"native" populations... anecdotally some of those societies are matriarchal, but plenty of them aren't... but I think something on that level of change would be needed to go from "extractive" toward nature to "oneness and co-healing" with nature. I think without going that deep, we can't excise patriarchy, because patriarchy is arrogance, and oneness with nature is wisdom and humility. No more high-rises and office buildings, just huts out living off the land and whatnot...

Consider the tangent further tangentialized. Thanks for bringing this up.

7
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
AutoModeratorMOD•

This comment has been removed. r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
kremor​•

A clear example of "fragile femininity" exists in heterosexual relationships, when the men starts to have interests in more feminine things and the women fears that it means she will lose her place as the only feminine person in the relationship, and may be needed to take on more masculine roles.

There was a good conversation about it recently with some good comments at the top written by women. Unfortunately I can't think of other instances where the label could apply.

61
[deleted]•

Also in the insecurity that comes when they are denied sex.

It's like they feel a crisis of identity when we don't want the one thing they think that we think they bring to the table.

38
twobulletscollide​•

This is one of those things that is terrible for everyone, especially because it is so cyclical.
It is a crisis of identity for many heterosexual women, that identity being their culturally-assigned one.

It is absolutely demeaning for men to be treated as if they always want sex with pretty much anyone, all of the time.
But, at least in many cultures, that is the default cultural context.

Because the assumed bar of a man's sexual desire barely lifts off the ground, it is perceived as a major defect on a woman's part if she cannot clear it.

Therefore, she must question if her desirability is essentially lower than the dirt.
Or she must conclude that something is "wrong" with this man's masculinity.

Men are given cultural context to assume that women may not want to have sex with them.
But women are taught that if you are valuable, most men will always want to have sex with you.
Woman can "know better" and even "want better", but it's very hard to shake that lingering voice in the back of your head that wonders - "If I were XYZ, would that change this?"

36
[deleted]•

[deleted]

19
ohno_spaghetti_o​•

I (woman) have had to work through that. Not only that he is still attracted to me, just not wanting to have sex right now. But also that feeling of if I am suggesting too often or too assertively and am the aggressor in so many encounters I have had with men where they have disregarded my disinterest. There is a lot of fear of not being good enough and also putting your partner in a position you have experience of being put in yourself. - which happens when you initiate. So much guilt and crisis of identity around 'am I the bad guy here?'

16
kuhzoo​•

Yeah, there's a balance to pursuing what we want, but not so much to disregard the pursued person's interests. That's also one of those things that we can learn academically and still mess up in practice. The only way to really learn it is practice and being willing to mess up until we figure it out ... and that's not fun.
It's not fun to be awkwardly testing boundaries. It's not fun when someone accidentally crosses our boundaries.

11
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
GlassyVulture85​•

I'd say that there is a lot of fragile femininity out there too. Many cis women react like trans men (like me) coming out as trans men is an attack on their femininity somehow (I mean look at what happened to Elliot Page). Or that any assigned female at birth person who eschews femininity is a problem .

39
Xylotophone​•

IMO, it's the idea of 'escaping womanhood' that they tend to take offense to. For me, growing up as a closeted trans boy, there was this recurring narrative throughout my life that no one really 'enjoys' being a woman, it's kind of just a thing you have to deal with being. It made sorting out the dysphoria I was experiencing pretty difficult, because I was operating under the assumption that the dysphoria was just internalized misogyny.

I think a lot of it is resentment for the idea that 'not liking being a woman' means you aren't one, as if it were that easy to just 'escape' being a woman. For better or worse, the language surrounding trans issues is framed from a place of active, enthusiastic participation in one's gender ('identify as', 'preferred pronouns', 'transitioning to') and I think the concept ends up kind of alienating cisgender people who view their gender as a passive fact of their life that they're obligated to perform.

And for women specifically, who are used to being obligated to 'perform' their a very visual, labor-intensive way, I think they default to reading 'butch' like a very different kind of performance - One that's just as artificial, but attempts to associate strength as a woman to traditional masculinity.

43
Banegard​•

Oh, that as a great point. I never noticed, but you‘re right how positive our language about transitioning is.

Cis women reading/ hearing about our relief from shaking off our unwanted female parts must feel like us, when trans fems keep talking about their relief when they get rid of „the poison“ testosterone. It hurts when a part of you that you cherish, is framed as something entirely negative. Alienating indeed.

6
Psephological​•

Good shout, thank you for posting this. I thought of TERFism when I read this OP. So much of it is grounded in essentialism.

6
Anseranas​•

'Fragile Femininity' is not a term I have come across but I would see it as toxic femininity. It is performative behaviour where the user positions themselves as the pinnacle of what it is to be feminine, often to denigrate those who do not present as feminine (female) or masculine (male) enough.

I've typically seen this used by one girl/woman against another. The focus can be appearance, gender roles in hetero relationships, employment choice, and reproductive ability and choice, and right to sexual autonomy.

Toxic or fragile femininity is actively endorsing and reinforcing patriarchal practices but from the (average) female point of view is extra awful because most women and female-presenting persons would have experienced disadvantage or abuse as a result of their gender.

To know the damage caused, then to participate and support that practice is a whole other level of wrongness which is very hard to comprehend.

Toxic/fragile femininity can be expressed and defended the same as toxic masculinity in that roles are enforced and deviation is ridiculed and sometimes punished.

Right now I can't think of any situations where fragility or toxicity, whether feminine or masculine, which can't be attributed to an underlying fight for dominance over another, or defence of one's position from perceived threat.

I'd appreciate any suggestions about situations other commenters have dealt with which demonstrate gaps in my perception of this topic.

38
mercedes_lakitu​•

The first thing this made me think of was how things like grooming standards (shaved legs, etc) are more often enforced by other women than by men.

19
Iknowitsirrational​•

There's also research showing that slut shaming is often used by higher status women to keep lower status women down: https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/0190272514521220

21
Anseranas​•

Yes. I have found personally that the 'sisterhood' is strong generally speaking, but when it is betrayed it's often done in impressively foolish and short-sighted ways.

I live in my vehicle and that sisterhood is often demonstrated by women who have offered their resources like food and a driveway to park in, often when they too have limited resources.

Some people forget there is always more strength in generosity because it grows exponentially.

13
myalt08831​•

Fascinating study, with lots of good citations to other works for context. Thanks for posting. I had no idea that (at least among college students), "slut" labelling was just thrown around and applied to basically whoever a given woman didn't like at the time, nor did I realize the "high status" and "low status" women would label members of the other "class" so consistently (in order to separate and judge each-other/process their mutual resentment), and not only was it not strictly how many partners you have, but virtually never had to do with how many sexual partners a woman had at all -- it was more perceived behavioral style and presentation, not the number of actual partners at all.

I mean I kind of want to unlearn that information, since I think no-one should be called slut unless they're reclaiming the term. I hope to never use this knowledge. But it paints a picture that social life for women is rough, and you can/will be labelled for essentially anything or nothing. It's seemingly inevitable and out of one's own control, an ever-present threat. Honestly I am so glad there is life after college, and I sincerely hope people are more mature and less judgmental after college... The party culture doesn't seem healthy to me if this article is accurate. (Maybe I'm revealing my "low-status" attitudes right there!)

9
Iknowitsirrational​•

it was more perceived behavioral style and presentation, not the number of actual partners at all.

That doesn't really surprise me, it seems similar to the way men can be labeled gay or a cuck as an insult. In most cases, men or women, these insults have nothing to do with actual sexual preferences, they're just used to police behavior that steps outside the gender norm.

12
Psephological​•

The examples I'd posit as falling under a concept of 'toxic femininity' would be:

  1. TERFism, which has been mentioned elsewhere in thread, I think
  2. The specific feminine gender dynamics that relate to the abuse of men by women.
  3. As you mention, any kind of behaviour based on a sense of precarious femininity that reinforces patriarchal norms
8
No-Border680​•

There are some differences, but I see them as quantitative, not qualitative.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean with by quantitative and qualitative.

​

One difference is that women "performing masculinity" is generally somewhat more accepted than men "performing femininity". (Arguably because "performing masculinity" is also "performing high status".) It seems like there’s more room for women to eschew traditional femininity than there is for men to eschew traditional masculinity, at least in the world I occupy.

There's definitively something to the idea that what we see masculinity as the "norm".

I think that society sees a difference between "acting masculine" and "being a man". There's a relevant distinction there, in my opinion.

​

Another difference is that fragile masculinity is seen as driving a whole lot of shitty toxic behavior (homophobia, risk-taking, misogyny) and upholding patriarchy, and the analogue for femininity doesn’t play the same role. Who’s attempts to affirm their femininity have ever hurt anyone?

But isn't that a sign of how threatening it can be for a man, if he's seen to have failed at being a man?

26
LastFreeName436​•

I think the best place to look for case studies on how femininity can turn toxic is the TERFy spaces.

21
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
narrativedilettanteMOD​•

This post has been removed for violating the following rule(s):

Links to elsewhere on reddit must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues. Links to other threads or subreddits that stir up meta-drama without adding something substantial to the conversation will be removed. All comments and posts including these links will be subject to moderator discretion in order to maintain a civil, productive discussion.

Any questions or concerns regarding moderation must be served through modmail.

1
dismurrart​•

I think you're right but being feminine has both a lot of constraints and flexibility.

If I only wear yoga pants and cute tops? That's slouchy and cute. If I'm ugly? I already failed.

17
myalt08831​•

I agree that fragility or defensiveness about gendered things is the same notion for men/women alike. It's worth combining them, if we don't discard any nuance or dismiss any side's concerns in doing so. I prefer to think of psychology as largely gender-neutral with gender as a little layer or factor on top changing how it plays out, for social reasons mostly, plus a sprinkle of biology as well -- but that the biology differences aren't so alien as to not be relatable across gender IMO. Our bodies are really similar too, if we admit that they are. And the differences can be learned about and understood with a little effort.

The thing that pops to mind first as an example: narrow definitions of "good Christian femininity" are what make hyper-religious women so awful. There is so much baggage around womanhood in "traditional"/hardline religions. And it's often the women who help enforce it, not just the men.

Those are the obvious examples, but it doesn't necessarily take religion to make that happen. I do think a lot of women are in a bit of a straightjacket with their gender roles, always having to please others. Whatever you do, everyone (men, women alike) feel free to judge you as a woman, so it seems. (I'm a guy, but I have heard/observed this).

I think some women, rather than bearing that judgment and knowing it's wrong but sort of inevitable that people will do that to you because society sucks sometimes (something to cope with or resist but never accept as okay), some will accept it as right and actually normal/okay, and go on to participate in browbeating others over the slightest things. I think this is where the old stereotype of women being "nags" derives from -- if you accept and have it normalized to you that everyone can critique and judge you over every little thing, you're going to feel awful and need to vent that somehow, for one thing, and you're sure as hell going to think it's normal to judge others, too. What saves/prevents some women from exporting this daily judgment and critique back onto others, is the demure thing. Not wanting to cause problems for others. Being sensitive to others' needs (up to and including putting them over their own...) There's a fine balance to be struck there between being a good person and being a doormat. (Plus the "status" thing -- some women don't see fit to cause problems for men by raising or asserting their needs, because they're afraid of pushback and that society favors the man here).

You can add on to that it sometimes seems like no-one listens to women. It can be hard to be heard about feelings or concerns as a guy, but it can be hard to be heard about pretty much anything as a woman (in the worst-case scenario).

So yeah, that thing where men have a lot of heavy things on them, that they are bottling up inside, and it comes out as unhealthy behaviors... Some women do that too, in their own way. Healthy emotional processing, standing up for one's self in appropriate and necessary ways, and learning when/how to lean on others, or set a boundary, etc. helps either gender. And without it, yes, it becomes... drum-roll please... "toxic." (In a slightly different way per gender -- in a gendered way.)

Toxic femininity/fragile femininity I think? Am I missing something? Seems clear to me.

(Note: These factors exist, but they do not apply as a hard rule to every interaction. Some people are just cool and aren't sexist or rude to each-other. Some people are good listeners. Some even actively fight back against regressive or unhealthy gendered norms. Not everyone is ruining your day in a gendered way. It's just worth seeing it as a pattern to better cope with it or see it coming -- it is a real element to our society, it is a real pattern, it's just not a constant thing.)

Another note: My point is, this is one of those things the discourse recognizes in men, but it applies to women too. Most tenets of gender studies can be applied to any gender if you pay attention to how it plays out across the genders. Most psychology is gender-neutral at the core, just flavored by our gendered experiences or subtly different biology as a rather thin layer on top.

tl;dr I agree with OP.

16
ohno_spaghetti_o​•

I remember a post a little while back about how every sitcom shows the women being default unhappy. Unhappy wife, unhappy neighbour etc. And that part of the 'plot' involves not listening or disregarding their feelings. So when the writer of said post was the 'unhappy wife' she assumed and so did her husband that everything was as it should be. She was filling her role. Until she tried to commit suicide one day. She attributes some of that mindset of having to sacrifice herself and her life to be a supporting role for others to sitcoms and the messages women are told about what it means to be feminine. I think about it a lot when watching tv/movies now. The narrative hasn't shifted enough.

11
[deleted]•

I think a reason we don’t see the effects of “fragile femininity” is because women are taught to internalize (blame themselves), whereas men are taught to externalize (act).

12
[deleted]•

So it really depends where you're coming from and the context of the conversation.

Talking about patriarchy, I actually agree that there's a sense of fragility to masculinity that contrasts with the strength of femininity. In a patriarchal system, I definitely recognize a strength and bravery to femininity that is born from the crucible of sexist oppression that women face from an early age. Similarly I would recognise that bravery in LGBT or otherwise nonconforming people who are subject to patriarchal violence. In this sense, I also agree that masculinity is a very fragile construct, which can be brought down so easily, while femininity is rendered durable from resistance.

Now the issue is with a more common sense approach to "fragile masculinity" that is more often than not distorted into a hammer to bash men with over social media or in real life situations. Obviously this is not the same thing, but rather an appropriation of concepts from systemic analysis to interpersonal relationships (which you shouldn't do with ease). In an ironic twist, the behaviour of people who make fun of "fragile men" can often be patriarchal itself, because it's not pointing out the relative protective privilege of masculinity, but rather faulting men for not performing masculinity at the level of confidence that they should be performing. Which often devolves into conversations of what is a "real man".

But regardless, I'd be very careful in making strict comparisons between masculinity and femininity. In patriarchy, these concepts have different origins and exist in different ways, so a "fragile masculinity" would not be equivalent to a "fragile femininity". In drawing these strict lines of equivalence, we're assuming that masculinity and femininity exist in equal standing, and I don't agree that they do.

11
swampyman2000​•

I think this is a really good post that outlines some key areas, while still providing plenty of space to spark discussion below. And, and this is important to differentiate this space from the sort of “men’s rights” spaces that also bring up these issues, was able to discuss and critique some issues with femininity respectfully and openly. I’ve seen so many of these types of issues brought up (not necessarily here though) where someone will bring up a similar point and give the sense that since this issue may not be as “visible” for women that it’s actually men who are the most harmed by patriarchy through the societal pressure we face, which is a pretty reductive way of thinking imo.

Anyways, that was a lot, I mainly wanted to say I thought the way you constructed your post and topic was very well done. I might try and emulate it for a post idea I’ve had kicking around for a while.

6
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
AutoModeratorMOD•

This comment has been removed. r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
mathrockwow​•

I don't think that fragile femininity exists. There is an immense pressure to perform on men. They must constantly prove that they are masculine. That means competing with other men and outdoing them. Everytime you fail to adhere to hegemonic masculinity, people directly question your manhood.

It's not "just" your honour that is threatened, it's your masculinity. That is a huge difference.

I'm sorry, but women simply don't have to deal with this. They don't experience this kind of pressure based on their ideals of femininity. We have to use different words for different experiences.

1
Ciceros_Assassin​•

Oh that's definitely not true. Look at the way Facebook Moms shame career or trans or infertile women, for one glaring example. Hegemonic gender impacts everyone; certainly not in the same ways, but the pressures are there.

8
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
Banegard​•

It definitely exists, although I don‘t think as much as fragile masculinity.
I know the type of woman with fragile femininity and probably a lot of my ftm brothers, too. They love to feel threatened by our mere existance. I have learned to avoid them at all costs.

It‘s probably more apparent to other women and trans folks, since they seem to focus their fragility and anger on other female people. Women‘s emancipation seems to have helped in sofar as femininity is not as often questioned by men, while men with fragile masculinity will be (or feel) attacked by everyone in our society.

I mean, I‘ve definitely seen girls tell boys how they‘re „not real men“, but I have rarely encountered men who do this. (Except towards me, but this is a special case of course and I welcomed those commentaries.)

5
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
smarabri​•

You're looking for internalized misogyny.

1