spaduf

I think these are some good points particularly as they reflect on the idea of 'redefining' Masculinity. While i would argue our current conception of Masculinity is much more deeply rooted (certainly much much older) than neoliberalism, Masculinity is similarly dependent on the idea of competition as the primary means of expression. This is why i believe it is somewhat missing the point to try to define a positive Masculinity. If you've got a group of people who've existed since birth in an intrinsically competitive environment, it is not enough to say the new ideal is not competitive. When the cultural notions of the group are already set in place, a supposedly less competitive ideal will result in almost no actual social change. Deconstructing the competitive instincts of Masculinity should be the primary project.

I'm gonna link this in the sidebar.

But it's also clearly partisan with just enough play to avoid a boycott. Everything the authoritarian president does to initiate the war has a very direct analogue in actions taken by Trump and his administration.

but you see them commit war crime after war crime

Ib keep seeing people saying this and i think it misses one of the major points of the movie. We're not supposed to look at this and go "they are bad because they committed war crime". We are supposed to look at this and go "of course they're committing war crimes, who's gonna stop them". This movie is very interested in the idea of what happens during war when a hegemonic US can't play world police.

Also bombing civilians?

I'm also watching the open book project.

If it just had epub support it'd be perfect

So I'm not necessarily advocating for a world without individual gender expression. The key difference here is external vs internal pressures.

I actually think that we're all better off without normative gender roles. To that end, I think that any attempt to define an alternative masculinity leaves you with something that is just as restrictive.

The majority of feminists are at least drawing from feminist works (even if the knowledge comes secondhand). When progress is made, it is made at the academic level.

There's a degree to which deconstruction of these sorts of topics automatically does work to dismantle them. For those with an egalitarian inclination, it is usually enough to point out unfair actions they have taken in the past to prevent them in the future. Obviously, there's a lot more external pressure here (one of the main focuses of the article) but I would argue this is even more relevant in that case.

If we were to try to teach a fish how to clean the water they live in, we must first start with what water is.

Feminism does not care that the vast majority of workplace deaths are men. Feminism does not care that boys are failing school at unprecedented rates.
...
My struggles as a man are not feminism’s issue.

I think you'd be surprised. The vast majority of those who actually cover these topics are feminists, doing academic feminism.

Definitely didn't realize this was such an old article. Side note, it's probably also worthwhile to discuss how things have changed in the past decade.