Black mirror's "striking vipers" episode perpetuates a theory that may be very real.

submitted by Mencantbewomen from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MezozoicGay 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (22 children)

For man being romantic and fully loving (and supporting) someone is considered as "weakness" in patriarchic society, and that role is "for mothers and wives". There even slur for such men - "henpecked". So men can be wanting to love, but they taught to not. Fear of being rejected by society can move some men to violence (I know at least one example).

At least I can openly support and love women as friends (not sure if it is legit phrasing in English, but in our language there 3 different words for "love" and one of them has meaning of very deep friendship - I mean that last one) and don't afraid of that slur, because I already marked by other, even worse crime - of being a gay man.

[–]Mencantbewomen[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

The question is however, do men actually love women, or do they love "cool girls", men "trapped" in hot female bodies?

[–]ThisReality 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I think men's ideal would be to have the maternal, sweetly feminine mommy-partner, and then the cool girl, "thinks like a man but built like a woman" bang-partner and fun-partner.

[–]Mencantbewomen[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So not one, but two women lol. Now that i remember, there was a very famous classic writer in my country that literally wrote a book about having two women, one motherly and protective, the other hot and sensual. So yeah you may be right.

[–]moody_ape 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that is so true! you said it all!

[–]yishengqingwa666 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"Ask men to describe their ideal woman and watch them describe a slave"

[–]MezozoicGay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am pretty sure men can love women, but do most want to?

[–]yishengqingwa666 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Obviously not.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

"Henpecked" definitely not not mean men who are "romantic and fully loving (and supporting)" of their female partners! It means a man who is continually criticized and bossed around by his wife or female partner. It's similar to the more vulgar "pussy-whipped."

AFAIK, there is no commonly-used English language slur for men who are romantic, loving and supportive of their wives/GFs/female partners as you describe. "Uxorious" comes closest, but it's not in wide use - most people in the Anglophone world have never heard of it. What's more, my understanding is that whatever pejorative connotations it has in the view of some, those have developed only over time.

In the Anglophone West in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, it definitely was not considered a "weakness" for men to be romantic, fully loving and supportive of their GFs and wives. Back then, there were hundreds of very popular songs written and sung by men in which they expressed their love and devotion for the women in their lives. Such songs were constantly at the top of the charts. I'll post titles and links to videos in a separate thread.

[–]uwushallnotpass 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

“In the Anglophone West in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, it definitely was not considered a "weakness" for men to be romantic, fully loving and supportive of their GFs and wives. Back then, there were hundreds of very popular songs written and sung by men in which they expressed their love and devotion for the women in their lives. Such songs were constantly at the top of the charts.”

Right? I was thinking this exact thing about the WAP thread. Music was almost all about the depth of emotion and the focus on another important human being, whether that involved the loss of the person, or just a general expression of how amazing they were, or a particular event or a story of some kind. Music in every genre from new wave to death metal. It wasn’t forced or fake, it was just the most interesting and important thing that nearly everyone (both men and women) wanted to express.

And right now the most popular song on the planet is “Wet Ass Pussy”, with a video that is a literal five-minute advert for prostitution, with no characters, no connection, no message except porn. And everyone has been brainwashed into thinking this is normal human behaviour, as if it was never any different. I can’t believe we’ve all fallen this far in 15-20 years, it’s like watching the last days of Rome on fast forward.

Obviously I’m not saying there was no misogyny before, or that institutionalised relationships were never used to oppress women, but “bros before hoes” wasn’t a thing. Men were proud of their ability to relate to women individually, on a romantic basis, and that’s what the songs were about.

I’m currently reading Theweleit’s “Male Fantasies”, which is about the attitudes of male Nazi soldiers towards women. The whole reason he wrote the book was to highlight the fact that they were all brought up with a “bros before hoes” attitude. Women were seen as weakening, shameful influences on men, and every self-respecting Freikorps man was at pains to demonstrate that he was manly enough to be immune to romantic attachments and would put his bros first. To Theweleit in 1987, this was so peculiar and so self-evidently pathological that he wrote the book to show everyone how odd their attitudes were.

And yet here we all are. The slur for a man who is romantic and faithful towards a woman is “simp”, by the way. It’s new, and it’s depressingly popular.

[–]Feather 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think it's a matter of interpretation.

A man who is loving and supportive of his female romantic partner would not see himself as being henpecked. He would just (accurately) see himself as being in a loving relationship.

His buddies, on the other hand, might disagree and inaccurately claim he is henpecked just because they're too immature to fathom that a man might genuinely want to put a woman first.

Their logic is basically...

  1. No man would want to put his romantic relationship with a woman first.

  2. My friend, a man, is putting his romantic relationship with a woman first.

  3. If no men want to put their romantic relationships with women first, my friend can't want to do it.

  4. But he is.

  5. So someone must be tricking or coercing him to do it against his will.

  6. He is henpecked.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, I completely agree, but I was responding to the poster who claimed

For man being romantic and fully loving (and supporting) someone is considered as "weakness" in patriarchic society, and that role is "for mothers and wives". There even slur for such men - "henpecked". So men can be wanting to love, but they taught to not.

Yes some men, such as immature incels and misogynistis, display the kind of logic you laid out. But many do not. And the other poster's claim that in "patriarchic society" universally all/most men are conditioned to consider being romantic, loving and supportive as weakness is simply not true. FFS, it was men who came up with the notions/constructs of romantic love, courtship, fidelity and marriage in the first place! And it's men who have made these ideas into institutions and built industries around them.

[–]Feather 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see what you mean now that you point out exactly what you were responding to.

I agree with you that men came up with the structures of these institutions and ideals. It's absurd that some of them now act as though women came up with these structures as a plot to oppress men.

[–]MezozoicGay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here it was actually the case until recently, majority of men were supporting such behaviour. And in many countries it still the case.

Maybe I should specify more that I meant world in general and not just USA or EU, where it should be less the case (at least I hope it is).

[–]VioletRemi 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

"Woman" does not mean male, and yet we are here.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Out of interest, what language is that?

[–]MezozoicGay 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ukrainian. It is "любов", "кохання" and "закоханність". First means deep love to parents or to friends, second means deep and/or passionate love to your partner and last one means easy love or crush.

However, in last few decades in spoken non-official speech it is valid to use "любов" to a partners who are living together for a long period of time and now have "calm love", as "кохання" is more "passionate love".

[–]tuesday 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The greeks had similar. Agapa was a love one had for a god, a perfect being. Eros was the lust one had for a sexual interest. Philia was brotherly love, the love between equals. Philadelphia was named after that. And the last one has recently been whitewashed all out of it's original context: Storge, the love one has for a family PET or SERVANT.

Think about it. Philia is the love has for a male. It is literally "brotherly love". Women were and are still loved as the family pet or servant.

[–]Fuzz 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

That's not what that word means, henpecked is a man with a controlling female partner, such that he is afraid even to contradict her, possibly implying verbal abuse. It doesn't have anything to do with being romantic.

[–]MezozoicGay 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Here it is does mean this and that for sure. When a man is canceling fishing with friends because his wife got sick or when man is making romantic gifts, he is almost always called henpecked - either jockingly or seriously.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have no idea how many times my husband has been called whipped because I expected him to do his fair share of the household chores. Henpecked is used to shame men who actually want gender equality. They think it’s abusive for a wife to expect men to pick up after themselves.

[–]Fuzz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's a similar expression in Ukrainian, or do Ukrainians commonly use 'henpecked' in English? I guess I've seen it used ironically, as in "oh haha you are spending time with your wife on your anniversary, how henpecked, have fun", but it seems pretty rude to joke that way about a sick partner.

[–]MezozoicGay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it is similar expression, but it has more wide meaning in spoken language. To which I am refering to.

And I was called by that as well, even thought I am gay man with gay partner. And I am still called henpecked for supporting women I know and for not being "manly enough".