(Part 2) Top products from r/OneY

I haven't read any of the five that made the list, but I absolutely recommend Fight Club and The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. They're both very good for anyone - man or woman - to read.

I downvoted your comments here, until I upvoted them. Because they need to be visible, as I think there is some confusion about academic feminist studies and how it serves to underpin a lot of contemporary identity studies work in academic circles that work on cultural issues. That said, there's a lot of truth to what /u/aescolanus has said and I'm surprised to see it downvoted so hard on a sub that tries to foster a greater discussion of what it means to be a man.

> It's not unreasonable to argue that some feminist activists are anti-male, including some on this board.

> You seem to show a strong bias against male activists, and for feminist activists.

One of the problems here is that almost everyone in press release reaction pieces like these is labeled an "activist" on Reddit or other popular discussions of feminism or feminist theory.

Now, an activist isn't necessarily confrontational AdviceAnimal fodder. Nor is a scholar unable to be an activist, as if activism is something base and below their PhDs. But we're talking about scholars here. Things like this proposed center are not lobbying firms, grassroots organizers, or policy shops.

And it is very true that many of the fundamental premises of academic masculine studies are based in academic feminism. They are related. Academic feminism gives us the idea that gender identity and function can be thought of as constructed by history and society. This is an extremely valuable tool for inquiry. Without using this premise, how do we even talk about men's issues? What discourse do we have to explain that the idea of the Manly Man, the Patriarchal Man somehow can hurt those of us in the arts? Those who are short? Those who are sensitive? Those of us who are victims of abuse? Should we ignore the decades of work by philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and cultural critics just because they are "feminists"?

Now of course, many of the people on the board of directors for this center aren't academics, such as Steinem, Fonda, Gov. Kunin or Ensler. Why? Visibility. Connections. Networking. Read some of Kimmel's scholarly work, or David A. J. Richards, R. W. Connell, and other masculinity scholars -- men and women alike -- and ask what it would mean for someone like Steinem to be nodding in agreement with the work going on there (despite her stated beefs with academic writing and it's "obscure" language, which I think was more of a bit of rhetorical posturing than a genuinely valid criticism). Legitimacy is a big deal. And these individuals were huge movers and shakers who fit into a larger narrative of women's rights and civil rights that changed a lot of things for the better.

Read through scholarly journals and books published by University Presses and the like. Consider that the "Steinem-level" voice for men's issues (male or female) will likely be reading these works as foundational texts.

Want to read a woman feminist author writing what I think is probably one of the best masculinity studies monographs I've read to date? Try Cynthia R. Daniels, "Exposing Men". (And hey, she's at Rutger's too, dontchaknow.)

Seriously though. Before you bash this as a sham institute, please read deeply to see what the arguments are and what evidence is being used. Read critiques, reviews, and rebuttals by peer scholars. Institutes like these can offer the funding for young thinkers to take a risk in writing something new or being away from the classroom, and opportunities for fresh scholarly voices to publish things that might not fit elsewhere.

Feminism and masculinity studies have a lot in common. Perhaps it's hard to tell by the feminists or MRA's who march or picket on street corners or haunt online discussion boards, but then again we're talking about an academic center for study. Admittedly, unless you know where to look and have the library resources to find the relevant journals, you're likely not hearing any of this conversation. And that blows. For everyone. (So maybe Steinem was onto something...)

The traditional gift for the first anniversary was paper, and the new one is clocks.

So, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Working-Paper-Clock/dp/0060910666

Do it together, draw a heart on it, write the date in the heart.

I really loved Iron John by Robert Bly. It's a book that tries get at old wisdom of what it means to be man through myths and mythology.

My therapist from a few years ago, who was a woman, gave it to me.

It's hard to put it into words what it's about as the book is mostly allegory and metaphor. But I still recommend it.

this post's is literally a feminist doing exactly what you want.
I mean seriously "a young feminists compassionate view of men" is the title. this isn't even something that is all that rare.

oh and you might enjoy this book

Short answer:

So this is actually a much deeper argument then I care to go to on reddit. I'll tell you that I think racial and gender discrimination are smoke screens used by capitalists to keep us focused on diversity as opposed to equality. Class inequality/capitalism is the root cause of racial and gender discrimination so focus on gender wage gaps is just a way to get people to ignore what actually matters, growing wage gaps across society.

For the long answer I like this book which has been heavily critiqued or really any critique of identity politics from a marxist perspective.

Take 30 days with a new attitude and find out for yourself. Don't hang your head, don't mope. Approach each interaction with the inherent idea that you matter and you will see what I'm talking about.

Some good reading too:

Un-Fuck Yourself:
https://www.amazon.com/Unfu-Yourself-Your-Head-into/dp/0062803832/ref=asc_df_0062803832/

How To Talk to Absolutely Anyone:
https://www.audible.com/pd/How-to-Talk-to-Absolutely-Anyone-Audiobook/B00EDPVJRG

Six Pillars of Self Esteem:
https://www.amazon.com/Six-Pillars-Self-Esteem-Definitive-Leading/dp/0553374397

Whenever I feel a little down, or in a slump, or in a sticky situation, I alway return to reading this book:

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy.

It always resets my outlook on life, reminds me that we're just hairless cavemen, apes who have their fight/flight response triggered by stupid, inane situations in daily life (managers, car accidents, sports games, dating, etc), and that ultimately it just doesn't matter. It puts me in my place in the universe and reminds me to appreciate the little things in life, like the fact that I can communicate with people in similar situations half-way around the world by moving my fingers a little.

/r/stoicism can give you access to similar material, but I find that book provides a very clear-cut and easy-to-follow outline of the philosophy.

=affiliate link

I am piggybacking your comment (hope you won't mind) to mention that Adam Jones' collection of essays on this matter is available on Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr and a few other places.

I am in the process of reading it myself and so far I strongly recommend this book to anyone, skeptics included, interested in male disposability and predominantly male issues.

In any case it's nowhere near as "arid" or otherwise tedious and difficult to read as I anticipated. The book is on the pricier side though, unfortunately.

http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393072223

http://amzn.com/0393239969

This book delves a lot into cultural symbolism, so the abstract nature of it may be a barrier for some men.

However, this one book did more for me about getting in deep, deep touch with what it means to be a man than all other materials I've read on the subject. (Not dramatizing; that's factual.)

https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-About-Men/dp/0306813769

I guess I just don't give a flying fuck anymore about what pop culture says about men and women? It's such a poisoned well of nonsense that I can't begin to fathom why anyone would waste their time trying to extract any kind of personal validation, identity, soul, or meaning from it. Or why they would regard it as any kind of real authority on how to live your life and be a super awesome human being.

What I mean is you say your tired of hearing about everything women do as being described as empowering? Then stop listening. Turn off the radio, movies, and the television and pick up a good book and while your at it try autoerotic asphyxiation or a flashlight or lube or whatever while you masturbate. And know that it was your choice and your right to do it and no one can take that away from you no matter how much spittle flies from their maw when they call you a faggot. Rock'n'roll baby. Also if you do decide to pick up a book, check out Sex At Dawn. I kinda wanna punch your shoulder and give you a strong hug. :-)

>What are you going to do with the men that have been and are already part of the feminist movement? Throw them out?

This makes no sense to me. Equity-feminists and non-extremist-MRAs are basically fighting for the same thing...equality and justice. They're just attacking the issues from different areas. Warren Farrell, for example, was a prominent figure within the feminist movement (he was the only male elected to NOW's board of directors 3 times)...and now he's an MRA.

This man deserves no downvotes! Science is on his side! Read The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature and it will change the way you think about sex forever... in a scientific and logical way.

Yes, actually, it is, because it focuses on the fact that the people in power are men, rather than the fact that they're in power.

What's more, defense of the term in the face of a more accurate term (kyriarchy) is misandristic because it attempts to perpetuate that inaccurate idea despite it being pointed out that there is something else even more significant going on, focusing entirely on the fact that the people in power happen to have a particular chromosomal structure.

> But they fight against replacing it with the word egalitarianism because that would imply that gender disparities are equal

Wow, there are a lot of presuppositions to unpack from that statement. It presupposes that the -ism is about the starting point, rather than the goal, which is, quite frankly, stupid (I mean, really, did people really think that communists believed we currently held property as a community?). It further presupposes that it cannot be the case that the inequalities might actually be roughly equal. Then, to top it all off, it presupposes that any inequalities men suffer are somehow of less concern without even looking at them.

This goes back to a blatant derision of men that dates back a full Four Centuries, assuming that anything bad that happens to men is something they deserve, and anything good happening to women is something they're entitled to. Hell, even in the 1920's, when women were only recently allowed to vote, it was seen as somehow okay for a woman to murder a man who decided not to marry her

So no, I'm sorry, that very thought is wholly predicated on the idea, the presupposition, even, that men aren't of equal concern to women. The fact that I cannot make such an assertion without people coming out of the woodwork to argue with me, yet women can expect a gender reversal of the same concerns to draw out similar levels of support makes a lie of your assertion that it is women who lack power.

King, Warrior, Magician, Lover : Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine http://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064

Iron John http://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-John-Book-About-Men/dp/0712610707

What you're talking about sounds a little like you want to establish a network/hierarchy/power-base as a reaction to other hierarchies. Personally I found all of my mentors outside of any recognised structures, and that's how I like to pass on my knowledge/experience to other younger men. It's kind of risky, but then so is institutionalised stupidity.

So far my only experience of joining established groups as a mentor has been really disappointing.

Sorry I don't mean to be negative, but I am wary of the human desire to create new groups all the time...

wellllllll if we're delving into it, the diagnosis stems back to Hippocrates too-- the "father of medicine" knew so little about the female body that he claimed the uterus literally wandered around, into her stomach or even her throat, causing erratic behavior -- "hysteria". This was the Father of Medicine, so people bought it for a long time. ( More info in this book, but the wiki article covers it too.)

so it was a legit diagnosis until a century ago, but women also couldn't vote until a century ago; the context is incomparable. That'd be like saying "look at all the racist people! oh, and dont get me STARTED on slavery." We're just not there anymore. It doesn't mean racism's gone, and it doesn't mean women aren't still patronized or belittled (I'm a woman, I been there). But people who pull out dusty old facts to support anecdotal conjecture, instead of modern scientific studies to support actual social trends, aren't just a part of the problem, they are the problem.