Credit: u/manchesterMan0098
Going from “men need intimacy” to “manchild wants a mommy” is toxic masculinity on the second guy’s part.
The first poster isn’t describing two way intimacy though. They are describing a mommy.
They don’t say anything about it being one-sided though. Could be worded better, but let’s not assume the worst.
Ooo that’s kind of a good point too.
It was definitely dunking for internet points.
Firstly, a disclaimer…while I shouldn’t really have to say this given the language I’ve used, I will anyway: I am by no means talking about ALL men.
The problem is that this is not an unfounded stereotype, made evident by the fact that the discrepancy between how household and childcare tasks are divided between partners (heterosexual, at least) is still a significant and prevalent issue.
Subconsciously or otherwise, this sadly rings true with a lot of men, who, at least in part, want—and sometimes expect—a woman who will adopt every role a mother would take. That is, taking care of most of the chores/household management/childcare duties, and without protest. Even when, say, both of them work full-time jobs.
Too many of these men either 1. do not know how to do simple household tasks (and are not unlikely to have adopted learned helplessness as a result), 2. deliberately delay or fuck up chores to get their partner to get frustrated and give up on asking for help altogether, or 3. simply don’t notice how much more work their partner is doing than they are.
I acknowledge that a lot of boys aren’t taught how to cook do chores as much as girls are, and those who haven’t been were failed by the adults in their life in that regard. It’s not a valid excuse once you’re an adult, though.
What about only reading the last part of the description instead of the whole thing to make a snap judgment? Is that toxic masculinity? Or is it just reframing it for your own ends, which is gender neutral?
So what was that because you just went off on someone who made a valid point.
Why don’t we all have a bit of nuance here? Wanting to be in a loving relationship doesn’t mean you need therapy. Obviously.
Some people don’t need to be in therapy and some people do need to be in therapy and the people who do need to be in therapy should be in therapy regardless of their gender. Making overly broad statements like pretty much both of these two are doing is entirely unhelpful.
What is also unhelpful is being rude and snarky.
I would say that, conditional to the man having a partner, intimacy is a hell of a lot more accessible than therapy. Provided that intimacy is not rationed or made conditional, this could provide more lasting and more timely healing than therapy as well.
With that said, we really need to normalize men seeking therapy. There are far too many men where the conditions above are not met, and so could and would benefit more from therapy than intimacy.
Everyone can benefit from a therapist and everyone can benefit from a loving, caring partner.
Who knew?
It definitely does not need to be one or the other. Oftentimes therapy could help in the relationship department considerably. Deep hurt is hard to get through alone, yet I hope more and more people understand there is help out there.
If relationships are a two way street, and one person is hurting enough to affect their role within it all there should be no shame in reaching out in that way. It could help a lot. It’s a shame there’s still so much stigma around therapy.I dont think that stigma is going to get any better any time soon (at least in the US). The past year has given me significantly less trust that anything medical remains private; i have no trust that things said in confidence will not be weaponized against me by the current government. There have already been cases of states demanding medical records for pregnancy, abortion, and transgender records, and texas actually got their hands on some records IIRC.
My therapist says she takes a bare minimum of notes because she understands the fear people have of private info getting leaked. Maybe someone worried about that could ask about their notes process during the therapist-finding stage.
I was implying that both are beneficials.
Oh yeah me too. I agree with everything you said, was just adding on my bit :)
I can’t comprehend what I read today. Sorry
No no, could’ve been how I worded it haha. It’s all gravy.
I choose a loving, varying therapist.
Wait wait wait… You’re telling me people need love? Pfft I don’t believe it.
I can guarantee there are at least a few people out there who don’t actually need love in adulthood to live happy and fulfilling lives.
How do you figure that?
Because there are always exceptions.
Always.
There is a well-known study about this: All You Need Is Love (Martin et al., 1967)
I don’t think the OP in the screenshot is describing a loving partnership though - the emotional support described is very much one sided.
There is no reason to assume that
I mean he described therapy
I think a modern dysfunction of intergender relationship is an increase in transactional intimacy. Whether it’s dating, sex, or emotional, I think a lot of men are paying for their intimacy.
There is a disconnect between people noticing that love is not unconditional, and thinking love is completely transactional.
Of course if love is never useful for one of the participating parties involved, then this/their love will fade. But people interpret this fact in the way that love should always be exactly as useful for all parties involved all the time.
But in reality, it should be fine if sometimes maybe one side is more selfish, less giving, sometimes the other side. Sometimes one side gives more emotional support, but the other side is more physically caring. And so on. Love doesn’t need to be perfectly equal, it just needs to make all parties involved better than if they were without the love.
But when you’re very competitive and selfish, and it’s hard to quantify each person’s usefulness to each other, it’s easy to always think that what you give is more than what someone else gives. Constantly having arguments about how you think things should be.
I’m not positive you mean this, but you’re implying men shouldn’t pay for their intimacy? You think it should be free? Everyone pays, but in healthy relationship the “payment” is emotional intimacy, acts of service, words of affection etc. No one is walking up to a stranger and banging them without giving anything. Heck even in sex alone there’s “transactions.” During foreplay, I get you a little turned on, you get me a little turned on, I escalate, you escalate.
I mean literal payment, with money.
It can easily be a case of personal perception of a relationship, at least my generation was constantly told their only value in life is utilitarian, when that’s your mind set you’re going to assume that’s the only value you have in relationships as well. Again, therapy would help a lot so men can see that their partners do value them outside of their assigned value culture.
I agree with what you and @Azzu @Azzu@lemm.ee are saying, in the vein that traditional gender roles have done more harm than good.
I think the culture is shifting but there’s also a weird backlash to the change, like the toxic Masculinity of Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson, or the Trad Wife movement, or the rise of Only Fans and other pay-to-play parasitic economies.
I think a certain subgroup of men are willing to give money in exchange for intimacy as a way to exercise power in that dynamic, as if it lessens their vulnerability.
Relationships should of course be mutually beneficial, and therefore are inherently transactional. But I also find it ironic that whether men paying for online dating apps to meet women, paying for drinks, paying for sex, or paying for therapy, it’s all hitting their wallets.
You gotta remember that the traditional gender roles come from somewhere. There are many that detest them so much that they can’t even imagine that there must be something in the human psyche that came up with them.
There are plenty of people that know about the traditional gender roles doing more harm than good, yet still choosing to mostly follow them, in a non-toxic way, because they are what actually feels best for them.
I think the radical feminist push of trying to achieve perfect outcome equality in all areas is as misguided as the rigid, inflexible attempt to keep traditional gender roles completely intact.
Naturally, if people notice a shift too far in a certain direction, they try to work against it, and most of the time this working against it is too far in the wrong direction as well.
🥺
Ok let me go, men, stop fighting battles no one asked you to, your lame ass warrior complex undermines your potential for kindness.
but i’m fighting in the name of kindness, i’m so confused right now
you gotta do loving in the name of fightness…? I think
wait
i got it, and i honestly think it works!
kind naming in the fight for love
naming in the love of fights?
War Love, Not Fight!
Now go fight in awar or go to prison while your sister gets to choose to stay home.
i truly hope you and i are gonna confuse the fuck out of some AI bot scraping this conversation.
The goal is ~75% of the time give helpful advice, and the other ~25% of the time be a weirdo just to throw em off.
At least that is how I justify my behavior anyways.
we are digital warriors, my dear internet friend
I hearby ask you to fight whatever battles you want, as long as you’re not a dick to anyone about it. Hopefully this frees up any confusion.
i shall carry the fight in your name
I don’t like legitimizing Freud cause like all his ideas that permeated popular culture are total bull but holy shit, paging Dr Freud.
He’s next tweet… “Use my promo code to join Andrew Tates Hustlers Academy.”
Mother figure? So partners aren’t supposed to be caring?
I think both parties are wrong here. Mothers do not need to be feminine or soft either. What the fuck does that even mean. FeMiNiNe sOFt women!!! It’s just coded language for submissive, self-sacrificing domestic slave.
Soft
Feels good to cuddle? Idk I’m a wizard.
Ya missing the point. The dude said “men need”. I do not give a flying fuck what men like this think they “need” from women.
I do not give a flying fuck what men like this think they “need” from women.
Obviously you do though.
I should be more precise for you “gotcha!” pedants: I will not change a single thing about myself or feel a single ounce of shame or influence based on the above statement. I only care in that I vociferously oppose its misogynistic premise and believe it is worth it to call out when I see it. Happy? God I hate people like you.
God I hate people like you.
That’s nice, I actually “don’t give a flying fuck” though, I’ve been hated by better I promise.
edit: language
I’m a man and I just need a big hairy and muscular chest to lay my head on the end of a very tough day.
I have no idea what this guy Alex is on about.
He said a hairy and muscular chest! That chest is smooth!
So a pitbull?
He wants to wake up with his face still on
Life’s hard when your husband has a smooth chest 😔
To all those saying, “but why shouldn’t men want to be cared for?”
This meme plays into a narrative the makes women subservient.
It suggests that only men “battle”, and that being a man and “battling” entities them to care by women.
No where in this is acknowledgement that women have burdens too, and that all people benefit from care.
No where in this is any hint of reciprocity. If anything, it implies that the “joy” of taking care of “her man” should be enough.
No. Walk the fuck on. Having a penis doesn’t entitle you to one-sided care.
The other thing implied by this - that women should ‘naturally’ be able to fix ‘her man’. But if a woman in broken? Oof - ‘she has Daddy issues’ and better fix herself, right?
And what if a woman tries to fix ‘her man’ and fails? Oh look - isnt that convenient - society just took all his faults and made them her failures. Wow! Who wouldn’t want to sign up for that??
And just look at that success rate. You can count up the number of women killed by intimate partners and see how great this plan is.
Society really needs to get past this childish narrative that tells men they should expect to find a manic pixie dream girl who lives only to make him happy. Men make fun of girls for believing in Prince Charming, but this is truly the more destructive fairy tale.
Also I guess gay men don’t exist. But would not be surprised someone with such a bad take also has bad ideas about queerness
You are correct. People with these attitudes would prefer gay men to not exist.
I get that the original was a bit sensationalist but I don’t see a problem with the overall message. Yes it was needlessly gendered but again that doesn’t change the message.
People need people that care about them and will listen. That’s it.
Yeah my fucking battle of testing software and doing deep dives on bugs.
Especially when your partner is a vengeful mother figure that physically, emotionally, and spiritually destroys you over several years until you finally leave it all behind and recognize how empty your life has been and how much self blame was gaslit and manipulated out of you.
