|
> While there's no doubt that self-optimization topics seem to attract more men than women, why is it that people who are into gender, equality and "toxic masculinity" topics … always have to put a label on everything, such as "This is male, this is female." They seem to be falling into exactly the trap they are criticizing. I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Instead, I’d wager men are more into “Self Optimization,” which is more a unique subculture than a goal or activity, and societal ideas of masculinity get a lot of play in that space. I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well. Honestly I don’t think that people are always being deeply normative when they talk about these things, they can just see features of the culture around them they find interesting and may dislike, and say so. For example, for the bro culture comment - I think most people would agree bro culture exists, that it’s male dominated, and that concepts of masculinity have a lot to do with it. I’ve had lots of discussions with people, men and women, who feel excluded by that culture. It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. An example I’ve encountered in real life was my universities chemical engineering program being know for a “bro” culture, and they had some real conversations about it and the reality that it might exclude some people, and they made changes because of it. To be fair, I’m not sure what role the gender discussion played in this piece, and I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall, so I can understand your response to it. But I don’t think that makes the practice wrong, and perhaps both a couple of bros not aware of who it is we’re excluding? |
> I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women.
Sure, it very much depends on how you define "self-optimization". Let's just say there is a group of people interested in certain (selected?) topics related to self-optimization that predominantly attracts men.
> I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well.
I have no issue if someone says "This and that subculture attracts mostly men [with certain character traits] and here's why this is problematic" and then goes on to explore this topic in detail. But carelessly throwing around stereotypes of masculinity and feminity doesn't help anyone.
> I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall
Yes, I would say so as well.
> It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality.
I'm not really sure I subscribe to this idea/desire of "real equality" (which I interpret as "equality of outcome", i.e. in this case a 50-50 representation of genders), at least not on a general basis. Different people have different interests and propensities, and it seems these are controlled by biological factors (e.g. sex) to some degree[0], though it is not clear how much exactly. In any case, not only does achieving a 50-50 gender distribution across all groups seem unrealistic, it would also go against freedom of will of the individual.
Now this is not to say that making a given group (e.g. a university's chemical engineering program) more inclusive and welcoming to all kinds of people (and all genders) doesn't have benefits. It does. But if, at the end of the day, we don't reach a 50-50 gender distribution everywhere, I don't think this is an issue, either.
[0]: See the debates about "systemizing vs. empathizing" and "people vs. things".