Vulnerability in Males

[Brad]

A church near me is having a sermon this Sunday:

Please join us on April 24 as we welcome Tom Kelley who will speak about

Cultivating Vulnerability in Boys and Men

How we can shift the cultural idea of strong masculinity to bring about a more peaceful world?

I find this offensive. While we want a less violent world, the implication is the world is violent because men are too masculine and need to be more vulnerable. So we want feminized men? I'm not the most masculine man around by any means, after all I wear skirts. But I still find this offensive. Does anyone agree or have other thoughts on this?

[crfriend]

Cultivating Vulnerability in Boys and Men
[...]
Coordinator: Jane Cowan

Be suspicious. Be deeply suspicious. This smacks of radical "feminism".

What's worth noting is that it's largely radical feminism that has shoved the notion of what it means to be "masculine" into a corner and, likely, contributed to the problems that we're experiencing today as a society. It's perfectly possible to be an entirely masculine man and still be sensitive to the world around you, to empathise with others, and to comport yourself in a way that you should be proud to do so. In fact, the act of understanding others enhances that masculinity rather than diminishing it; if you cannot perceive how others feel it becomes impossible to interact with them in civil ways -- which may be what the radical feminists want. Radical feminism seems bent on completely reversing the roles or getting rid of men altogether (which is something that's been postulated in several sci-fi stories).

"Vulnerability" has precious little to do with sensitivity and empathy.

It might be worth a listen, but listen for the subtext.

I find this offensive. While we want a less violent world, the implication is the world is violent because men are too masculine and need to be more vulnerable. So we want feminized men? I'm not the most masculine man around by any means, after I wear skirts. But I still find this offensive. Does anyone agree or have other thoughts on this?

I agree, for the above reasons. I smell a subtext.

[Kilty]

Men are not delicate things. If by 'Vulnerable' they mean men should be more open, express feelings, then perhaps, but aside from that sounds like a load of rubbish to me

[Brad]

I sent this email to the church. Let's see if I get a reply.

I was a little put off by the topic of this week’s sermon. I am not a member of your church but I have considered joining and I respect the progressive, forward-thinking, and egalitarian nature of your views.

I am a male with many qualities often associated with the feminine gender. This is what I am and I’m happy with it. I don’t have to try to be anything that I am not. However, having said that, the idea that masculinity is somehow a bad thing is erroneous, divisive, and mean-spirited. It amounts to male-bashing. In our current society, male-bashing seems to be accepted and tolerated. But that doesn’t make it right. We can have a peaceful world with men who are not vulnerable. This email seems to imply that because my creator gave me a penis I am somehow a bad person. A penis is just a body part. Men and women are biologically more similar than they are different. The difference is one chromosome. The rest is society. We are all people first and we all want peace. What is to be gained by divisive male-bashing? I would so much like to attend this sermon but I unfortunately have other plans that can’t be changed.

[Jim]

How we can shift the cultural idea of strong masculinity to bring about a more peaceful world?

It's the cultural idea that they are seeking to shift, just as we on this site are.

It's perfectly possible to be an entirely masculine man and still be sensitive to the world around you, to empathize with others, and to comport yourself in a way that you should be proud to do so. In fact, the act of understanding others enhances that masculinity rather than diminishing it

I think this is in line with the teaching advertised. Read more from Tom Kelley on masculinity at http://opendeepandtrue.com/maskulinity/

[Brad]

I read the link in Jim's post. Did I miss the point of the vulnerable male concept? I saw it as male-bashing; that is, ascribing as negative all that is associated with the traditional masculine gender role that, according to some, leads to violence, when the point is men can continue to be men but not be afraid to be vulnerable, which puts a different spin on this. Are we men tied down because we are not supposed to express our emotions through crying, a perfectly natural reaction to an emotional state that society expects us to repress? So instead of feminist male-bashing this is really intended to liberate us?

[crfriend]

I think this is in line with the teaching advertised. Read more from Tom Kelley on masculinity at http://opendeepandtrue.com/maskulinity/

That was an interesting 30-second read, but one must contemplate the difference between "sensitivity" and "vulnerability". "Vulnerability" has the not-so-veilled notion of "victimhood" to it; "sensitiveness" does not. In fact, sensitivity is one of the key components of "street-smarts" -- the ability to read and feel how those around you are thinking and behaving. Even if you're the most macho one on the block, if you're not paying attention you're "vulnerable"; is not sensitivity better, then, in that regard?

Put bluntly, to be "vulnerable" is to be the victim -- and that's what some people want. Being "sensitive" is entirely compatible with being masculine, and so is being empathetic; those traits are simply downplayed in modern society when they should be being actively espoused -- BY MEN. (And, yes, I am entirely aware of the tragedy of the "sensitive New Age (pronounced to rhyme with "sewage") guy".)

[Fred in Skirts]

I too find this very much male-bashing. The feminist movement is trying to make men the slave of their wishes. To do away with the right of the male of the species to exist. I have seen to much of this on TV and in the papers. The man is always the criminal.

Fred

[moonshadow]

Hmmm.... the topic is somewhat confusing...

Cultivating Vulnerability in Boys and Men

Cultivating is defined as "try to acquire or develop" (I assume in this context it has nothing to do with the raising of crops)
Vulnerability is described as "the state of being open to injury, or appearing as you are".

My first question, is why would ANYONE, whether they are masculine, or feminine want to "cultivate" these characteristics? It seems to me they are a sign of weakness. Now I'm all about embracing my feminine side, however, as anyone who has dealt with women often knows, they only APPEAR as vulnerable, often, they know very well how to "win the game". The biggest difference I see in masculine and feminine in this regard is the masculine tend to be more assertive and "in your face" about an issue, whereas the feminine tend to be more cunning, working behind the scenes to drive the knife in your back.

It sounds like this "sermon" is just one method for the "radical feminist" (to use Carl's term) to using their CUNNING to swing the pendulum further in their favor by demonizing men who act like men, and snipping the balls off of them. Now I'm all for peace over war, live and let live, fairness, and such... but there is such a thing as natural selection. Sometimes, in the world, ya just gotta get pissed off and break something. Women and men BOTH have tempers and can be irrational. I fail to see this as a masculine/feminine issue, but rather a simple human issue. One either has an anger problem, or they don't. But the message of painting all men with the same irrational brush, while vindicating women of any wrong doing is just wrong.

These type of feminist just want to come out on top. They want to rule the world. They are no better than the men they criticize. They feel they are at a disadvantage because they have a vagina, so they try to brainwash the masses into believing that having a penis is a vice, and that women are the true "fairer sex". This is NOT true feminism. Shaming men for being who they are is not what "equality for the sexes" should represent! Sure there are power tripping men too, and that's my point. Men AND women can power trip. And yes, I suppose it is a dominant characteristic, but not all men are alpha's, and there are a fair number of women who I believe would fit the role.

Or maybe I've just got this whole thing wrong.... it is somewhat of a hard story to follow.

Then we go to:

How we can shift the cultural idea of strong masculinity to bring about a more peaceful world?

Simple.... promote and teach tolerance, love, compassion, fairness, ethics, and above all....
RESPECT!
WHICH by the way.... every virtue I just described has long been the standard of what a REAL MAN is! Virtues that seemed to have fallen by the wayside for men and women alike!

The problem is NOT masculinity... the problem is POWER TRIPPING MEN, and we WILL NOT SOLVE THAT PROBLEM WITH POWER TRIPPING WOMEN!!!

Gheeze! What the hell is wrong with people??!!?

The REAL reason why these type of feminist women can't be taken seriously by the masses is NOT because "the MAN" is holding them down... it's because they are full of sh!t!

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

WOW!

I have come to understand that being vulnerable, not that I've mastered it, means being open about who you are, what you're feeling, open to hearing the truth about yourself, having true humility, etc.

That last one has been incredibly tough for me to wrap my pea-sized emotional brain around. As a kid I got the impression it meant hiding your talents, minimizing them or passing them off as not as significant as they really are. That's not humility that's self-abnegation; belittling yourself. Humility is knowing and accepting, being truly comfortable with your limitations. Truly believing you don't know everything and are not the best at everything.

If that kind of vulnerability is submitting to feminazi/ male-bashing/ psychological castration, then maybe you're equating machismo with masculinity. And maybe so is the author of the title of that sermon.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with masculinity when it has room for those characteristics that I stuffed into "vulnerability." Machismo, as I understand it, is among other things, the kind of stupid, reckless, angry arrogance that drives Donald Trump and his supporters.

Interestingly, I saw one of the best examples of macho at my pastor's wedding ... to another woman by the way. The poster child of machismo was a woman who I first mistook for a man. She exuded such an angry, belligerent vibe it was palpable several feet away. She and too many of us men learned it as a defense mechanism. Her example made me realize that we have equated such behavior with the strength of masculinity when it's really a symptom of insecurity.

The opposite of wearing such psychological armor is being vulnerable.

Don't get me wrong, my hair-trigger anger has cost me at least 2 of my 3 marriages and God only knows how many jobs. The day I feel like I've fully shed that "armor" I won't feel weak or castrated, I'll feel truly free, virile and approachable because I won't be bouncing people off of the force-field of my anger. But I will also be open to the hurts that inevitably occur when you get emotionally close to people.

That last is what I think most people mean by "vulnerable."

Does anyone have a problem with that? Feel that such an approach to life threatens their masculinity?

Please take those as serious questions.

[crfriend]

If that kind of vulnerability is submitting to feminazi/ male-bashing/ psychological castration, then maybe you're equating machismo with masculinity. And maybe so is the author of the title of that sermon.

We confuse masculinity with machismo at our peril, and, yes, it's easy to do -- at least on the surface.

[...] The day I feel like I've fully shed that "armor" I won't feel weak or castrated, I'll feel truly free, virile and approachable because I won't be bouncing people off of the force-field of my anger. But I will also be open to the hurts that inevitably occur when you get emotionally close to people.

That last is what I think most people mean by "vulnerable."

At issue is the verbiage. Note that where the sermon/talk was entitled "Cultivating Vulnerability" I forwarded the word "sensitivity" as a better choice. There's not just a small whiff of "wiling to be the victim" in "vulnerability"; not so with "sensitivity". Yes, if I'm sensitive I'll get emotionally hurt at times; however, I won't let somebody else control my existence. A certain amount of emotional armour is necessary to our mental health, yet it can be taken to extremes where one stops caring about the world and those around him, and also to the point where he has no power to make rational judgements and uses nothing but emotion -- that second one is "vulnerabiity". Using a balance of rational thought and emotion is what's needed.

Does anyone have a problem with that? Feel that such an approach to life threatens their masculinity?

Slightly recast, I have no issue with it at all. It's more down to semantics. I view emotion as being part and parcel of being human, and to deny one's self of that part of himself is doing one a great disservice.

However, "Cultivating Vulnerability" sounds very much like somebody trying to emasculate men by turning them into the sort of fawning, weak, and powerless women that men tried to create in years gone by -- and have instead created a monster.

[denimini]

I think Pdxfashionpioneer expressed the intent of the term vunerability in this instance. Nothing too sinister.

[crfriend]

I think Pdxfashionpioneer expressed the intent of the term vunerability in this instance. Nothing too sinister.

That could well be, but somebody'd have to go and actually listen to the talk to find out first-hand.

[Stu]

I'm afraid this IS an example of "true feminism" - to claim otherwise is an example of the "true Scotsman logical fallacy".

Modern, third-wave feminism is radical feminism and deeply misandric. It seeks to infantilise women, portraying them as perpetual victims of oppression by men, and demonising men. Moern feminism does not seek equality - it actively and now openly eschews equality between the sexes. Instead, they claim to be striving for "liberation", although they can never actually define how they are oppressed beyond whining about trivia like "manspreading", or supposedly sexist air conditioning systems, or men wearing tee-shirts of which they disapprove. That is not to say all women who call themselves feminists think this way; there are still a few "equity feminists" around, and many ordinary women who still like the label are unaware what their movement has become.

[Jim]

I'm afraid this IS an example of "true feminism" - to claim otherwise is an example of the "true Scotsman logical fallacy".

Modern, third-wave feminism is radical feminism and deeply misandric. It seeks to infantilise women, portraying them as perpetual victims of oppression by men, and demonising men. Moern feminism does not seek equality - it actively and now openly eschews equality between the sexes. Instead, they claim to be striving for "liberation", although they can never actually define how they are oppressed beyond whining about trivia like "manspreading", or supposedly sexist air conditioning systems, or men wearing tee-shirts of which they disapprove. That is not to say all women who call themselves feminists think this way; there are still a few "equity feminists" around, and many ordinary women who still like the label are unaware what their movement has become.

I have known many feminists, but I think only the variety that do not "think this way." I still disagree with destroying the inclusiveness of words like "man", but they and I agree with having a more equal society without being subject to sexual stereotypes.

Look at the speaker's web site, http://opendeepandtrue.com/, and tell me what parts of it express the kind of "feminism" that you object to.