Hi! I (23M) am recovering from complex childhood developmental trauma. I've considered myself an outside observer to human society because I was unable to bond with or relate much to other people until this year.

I grew up in an environment with abusive parents where any kind of softness or vulnerability in men was considered "gay". Subsequently, I encountered a lot of male peers in school who had the same attitude. It seemed like the entire world had the same message: wanting to be vulnerable as a man represents a sexual perversion because it is a "feminine" trait. I was bullied for the bits of vulnerability that I showed, echoing my abusive parents punishing my vulnerability. This sent me into a suicidal spiral that I thankfully made it out of.

I had this inexplicable desire to be vulnerable that I couldn't suppress. It made me believe that I was somehow "gay" despite only being attracted to women, and that women who like men could never find me attractive because they were only attracted to "straight" masculinity -- invulnerable, competitive, and dominating -- consigning me to a permanent ontological friendzone. Ultimately, I decided to take the Faustian bargain of trading my sexual potential for the freedom to be soft, releasing me from the internal pressure to conform to patriarchy.

(To clarify, I was confused in a specific way where I thought "straight" = patriarchy and "gay" = anything that challenges patriarchy. I concluded that the latter was morally superior and adopted softness and progressive beliefs on purpose even though I falsely believed at the time that this would lead to my celibacy based on the right-wing echo chamber I grew up in.)

Through healing from my trauma and talking to friends years later, I'm starting to think that this belief was kinda bullshit? How can you avoid being vulnerable when merely existing in the presence of your partner opens you up to their potential judgement? How can you avoid being vulnerable when you ask someone out, knowing they can reject you? It's almost like I actually didn't want to be vulnerable despite thinking otherwise, and refusing to even appear in front of people actually made me the most invulnerable and therefore manliest man who ever manned, or something. Also, accepting my fate of being in the perma-friendzone led to me making a female friend who emphatically told me that I actually could find a girlfriend because I have this adorable charm and clumsiness that seems to make her instinctively want to baby me, which I always thought was the exact opposite of desirable. I'm slowly coming around to believing her after 6 years.

Most importantly, love requires both partners to be emotionally vulnerable, right? So then under gender roles, men can't love women, only objectify them? Wouldn't this make society one giant trauma factory where men are traumatized into detached sociopathy and women are traumatized into servitude? So what the hell are conservatives doing in relationships? Are they all loveless relationships, or did all of the men cheat their gender role to develop romantic feelings? If men didn't cheat a little in the past decades where gender roles were the strongest, shouldn't we see a kind of generational trauma so severe that violent crime is rampant and secure attachment is very scarce?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

They don't function as healthy people

They're fundamentally fucked-up and should be disregarded as any sort of example other than a warning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

    Now explain to OP how society has survived for millennia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    I don't think this has been the state of society for millenia.

    Tolkien had Frodo break down in front of Sam in Lord of the Rings. Sam literally carried him after. This was written not even a century ago, and wasn't seen as all that remarkable or groundbreaking. Hell, it wasn't unusual that they held hands, it was just a thing bros did.

    The current level of toxic masculinity is a new phenomenon, it's not a feature of a stable society

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago

    Well observed. It's far from the only example. You can go back as far as the earliest written literature and find examples of male vulnerability. From Gilgamesh and Enkidu to Odysseus to so very many others. Jesus cries openly in front of his disciples. Judas kisses him as a greeting.

    The biggest shift happens in the 20th Century, as men grow increasingly afraid of being perceived as queer.

    With that being said, we should not fall into the trap of lionizing the past here either. Ancient Greece was spectacularly queer and spectacularly sexist. They also had their forms of strict gender roles, even between men who were openly fucking each other.

    Ultimately, strictly defined gender roles have always been a problem. Especially for women, who often get overlooked in these discussions when they're framed in this particular way. It's true that how those roles have been defined has changed over the decades and centuries, but it doesn't erase our underlying tendency to constrain ourselves with definitions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago

    I mean, even the orthodox Christians don’t practice what they preach. Republican senators turn out gay. Priests fuck little boys. All through the ages, speakers of societal virtue have written all kinds of exceptions for themselves behind closed doors.

    Many households get to write their own history, present it in a kind manner; and so you get Sherlock Holmes’ terrible prediction that the idea of a peaceful countryside is an illusion; that there’s far more crime out there that goes unnoticed, even if their family record was that of a willing and happy Lord and Lady.

    We’re getting better about things. But the betrayals of humanity, and of the supposed “traditional roles” became a lot more visible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago

    "Society" hasn't survived in this state for millennia, it reeks of white supremacy to suggest there's some monolithic thing the world over called "society". The phenomenon OP is talking about has been a part of western european and especially American culture for a century or two, but other societies exist now and in the past

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 hours ago

    Society has been good enough to survive.

    Just because something has survived doesn't mean it's good or healthy.

    The best we have doesn't mean the absolute best.

    It's quite simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

    What you think of "traditional gender roles" isn't real

    It's very much a modern construct, and a stupid one at that

    It's a great way for men to subjugate women though, so if you're into that shit, I can see why you like the idea

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments