So I found this website "The Art of Manliness" [View all]
It's not a MRA site, but while I'm convinced there are a few MRA posters, I think a certain number of men (and women) think more like this. (These are the ones who argue about doors, completely missing the point) Nothing so defined as this site, but more a vague feeling of what a man is and what men should be doing, and how men should be acting.
What caught my attention was a description of how to properly tuck in your shirt--- which I thought was pretty funny, up until I remembered all the fashion advice women are inundated with, then it was far less funny.
So this goes back to old fashioned basic definition of masculinity, completely heteronormative of course.
The article, "What is the core of masculinity" is interesting in it's naïveté, it's insistence that man was born to be the "protector"
But in studying them, one can’t help but notice that their requirements are not exclusively manly. Haven’t women played a part in these roles, not just now, but since time immemorial? Is it possible then to drill down through these fundamentals even further, to find the role and its attendant attributes that are, if not exclusively manly, then the most distinctively masculine — the very core of manhood?
If we look at the procreator and provider imperatives, we find that they are roles that men and women share – and that what is distinctively masculine about them comes down to a difference in emphasis.
In the procreator role, it most certainly takes two to tango. The emphasis is simply placed on the man taking the initiative in getting the proceedings started.
In the provider role, men and women have shared the responsibility for contributing sustenance to their families since the dawn of time. Here the emphasis is on the husband contributing more than the wife, and making a more vital contribution (protein vs. plants, in premodern times).
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/07/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/
Now this is patently bullshit, but at least it's polite bullshit. Or perhaps passive-aggressive bullshit. It's not so much Evo-psych (although it is that as well) as it is every western from the '50's.
The site has many articles, a variety of topics, and while I didn't read everything, these guys seemed to be able to remain civil.
The danger, or perhaps the futility, is that they are wrong, sickly charming, but wrong.
So I wonder if we have something else going on here besides the nasty MRA type derailments and DU's apparent inability to civilly discuss sexism or gender roles. These types, have learned these masculine vales from their mothers and fathers as well as society, and can't see their way to anything else. The core of the "masculine" ideal is under attack wherever they go, and you can see this in knee jerk responses. They wouldn't be young men nessisarily either. Anyway, the deeper you go into the site, the more the thought 'WTF' comes to mind. To me the fact that this site even exists explains those who are not MRA's but remain close minded and hostile to feminists.
= new reply since forum marked as read