[marcellus23]

> While "man flu" is a popular term for men getting excuses to complain and play on a computer during a minor infection

I always find it funny how we're supposed to be in an age of fighting sexism but the rise of bizarre gendered stereotypes like this — to the point where articles are getting written about them as if they're real phenomenon! — is baffling. Imagine articles about "woman flu" for the (also stereotypically common) phenomenon of women constantly being sick.

[hnbad]

What if I told you that this is literally what feminists mean when they talk about "toxic masculinity" and that pop feminism (i.e. what sells ads/clicks) has barely anything to do with actual feminism?

Toxic masculinity refers to the idea that masculinity is narrowly defined around a number of traits and social expectations that are harmful both towards men and to others. E.g. "man flu" is a thing because it's generally not socially acceptable for men to show vulnerability but men often see illness as an exception to that and thus some men use seemingly minor illnesses as an "excuse" to be vulnerable and dependent. Likewise emotions other than anger are often difficult to express for men but sports (football in the US, the other kind of football in Europe) is an "excuse" to express sadness and emotional proximity between (straight) men.

The point here is that these gendered expectations and behaviors aren't innate but they're upheld by society. Women's liberation was able to overcome a lot of stereotypical expectations for women (though certainly not even most of them) but it wasn't followed by a "men's liberation" doing the same for men, except as a direct response where women's liberation challenged male gender roles. E.g. with women no longer being expected to take care of the home by themselves, household chores like laundry and cooking have become socially acceptable for men.

Pop feminism individualizes these problems by ridiculing men, but the problem isn't individual men, nor men in general really. It's a social problem and much like women's liberation it requires a mass movement to solve. Except most men still aren't aware there's a problem and those who are often don't think it's fixable (much like women who rejected the suffragettes or the later waves of feminism).

[marcellus23]

> those who are often don't think it's fixable

Yeah I pretty much agree with you and I fall into this category myself. It's obvious we need a movement like that, but society (as it exists right now) won't even acknowledge the need, let alone would actually tolerate the existence of such a movement. Maybe my grandchildren will be able to live in a world that's kinder to men.

[hnbad]

The problem is the oppression of gendered expectations towards men is much more abstract because it is framed as empowerment.

Men aren't supposed to cry or show emotions other than anger except in extreme situations (e.g. birth of a child or death of a close relative or romantic partner) but stoicism is seen as a demonstration of strength and rationality.

Social attitudes for men embrace self-destruction but because men are taught adherence to these ideals is the only valid way to seek affirmation, giving them up feels even more damaging because you have nothing else left. This is why positive role models are important but in order to be effective they need to function as role models in the traditional expectations as well.

I think a good example is Terry Crews, who fits the traditional masculine role model of being an accomplished athlete, actor and father, but also broke the silence on sexual assault against men, as well as being an activist against sexism and expressing emotional depth in his characters. Role models aren't enough but they help normalizing non-conforming gender expressions, reducing the resistance faced by people in the real world.

We won't get rid of archaic gender roles overnight, but fighting sexism, homophobia and transphobia (and racism, but that's a story for another time) goes a long way towards allowing men to express themselves differently without having to fear being told they are "unmanly" because being told your behavior is "girly" or "gay" no longer works as an insult if you don't see these adjectives as signaling something "lesser" than how you want to be seen.

In short, women's liberation was easier because sexism meant women were seen as inferior and demanding to be able to do "things men do" was empowering. Men's liberation is more difficult because we didn't overcome sexism and thus men behaving "like women" is still seen as inferior rather than empowering. A good demonstration is how women rejecting their "empowerment" by embracing femininity are recuperated by conservatism.