(Part 3) Top products from r/OneY

There is a lot of research going on with organizations and journals dedicated to the subject.
American Psychological Association: Division 51 Society for Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. This is probably your best resource. They have a page dedicated Research Briefs. Their Div 51 Journal - Psychology of Men & Masculinity will provide a thorough review of research published in the area.
There is also the Men and Masculinities Journal, the
Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, and the
Journal of Men's Studies. I'm sure that I am missing some but these are the ones that I know of. You could probably also find a text book that covers a lot of these ideas. I think the standard is APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities, Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, and Masculinities 2nd Edition.

If you find anything you think interesting please post it over to /r/manfeelings. I'm collecting interesting articles and pieces over there.

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...)

Sometimes its feet too... you usually point your feet towards something you like or something you want. Body language doesn't lie.


And yes, there are a lot of hoaky stupid books/sites about body language but if you find one that was written by someone credible the info is really awesome. I liked The Definitive Book of Body Language

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.

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

In his autobiography, Carl Jung puts forth a similar idea. Later in his life, he had came to the conclusion that both partners should each have a room exclusively for themselves, where the other isn't allowed to enter.

His idea was that, for each partner to keep evolving, they need to retain a part of solitary individuality; a part of the self that is independent and unaffected by the relationship. That is what the "exclusive room" was meant to achieve.

I think a lot of young couples would have trouble with that kind of arrangement. Our culture puts so much romantic emphasis on fusional relationships, being able to say "we share everything!" almost becomes a requirement to consider the relationship successful.

Personally, I tend to agree with Jung's idea. I'd definitely require a mancave for myself. I'm used to requiring lot of time to be by myself, regardless of my dating status. So much so that it had me backed out of moving in with a girlfriend more than once. I'd have absolutely no problem with my SO having a womancave neither.

Why do you think so many couples starts experiencing difficulties once they move in together? It's not just the trivial things like fighting over the toilet seat or the dishes. A lot has to do with not having any space to be by yourself at your own home.

May I recommend the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Everyone-Turtleback-School-Library-Binding/dp/0613685725

I highly recommend 30 Lessons for Living by Karl Pillemer. It helped me a lot when I was thinking about similar types of questions.

Here is a .pdf of a summary, barely more than a table of contents but it gives you an idea of what is in the book.

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.

Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849569

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

http://amzn.com/0393239969

Some women have vaginal orgasms and may prefer large men. Many many many women have cliteral orgasms for which size is less of a factor.

Sex is important in relationships but there are 1000 layers to sex and most porn covers like 5 of them. The other 995 are waiting to be explored.

Far more important is learning seduction itself, without which many large men have just as much difficulty getting laid as you.

Make this your bible for a year and see how it goes:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735204357/

Remember that however many insecurities you have about your body, most women have 10x more. And find a way to make porn a smaller part of your life.

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

probably depression. People think of depression as "feeling sad" but its really frequently more like "not feeling anything at all".

Also see http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Want-Talk-About-Overcoming/dp/0684835398

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.

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.

The title comes from this book.

From the blurb "More than half a century after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defined what a human being is and is entitled to, Catharine MacKinnon asks: Are women human yet? If women were regarded as human, would they be sold into sexual slavery worldwide; veiled, silenced, and imprisoned in homes; bred, and worked as menials for little or no pay; stoned for sex outside marriage or burned within it; mutilated genitally, impoverished economically, and mired in illiteracy--all as a matter of course and without effective recourse? "

>Maccoby sets out to explain the great mystery of gender development: the virtually universal existence of gender segregation among children, which remains impervious to the best efforts of egalitarian-minded parents and teachers. Boys and girls will play together if adults require them to, although it's often "side-by-side" play, in which each does his or her own thing, but given their druthers, children self-segregate. The result, Maccoby argues, is the emergence of a "girls' culture" and a "boys' culture" that are strikingly different in play styles, toy preferences and ways of interacting. Before long, as with any two nations, schools or ethnic groups, boys and girls identify with their own in-group, they stereotype and disparage members of the out-group, and they misunderstand or feel uncomfortable with the other group's ways of doing things. The most puzzling fact about the two cultures of gender, however, is their asymmetry. Boys' groups, Maccoby shows, are "more cohesive than girls' groups: more sexist, more exclusionary, more vigilant about gender-boundary violations by their members, and more separate from adult culture."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Sexes-Growing-Together/dp/0674914821