I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women's spaces, seen as a woman.

As a women that, granted, had some serious questions about gender in my younger years this has always blown my mind because it’s so multi-faceted.

Women are more emotionally supportive, but it can quickly spiral into an almost gross-feeling and superficial reinforcement. Everything seems to be “valid” or demands an emotion-ridden hullabaloo, whereas the men in my life have always been more direct and straightforward, unafraid to call out my general jack-assery or quip “yeah, that sucks” when there’s not much else to be said about my general state of affairs.

The flip side of this is that women tend to be more sympathetic/vocal to general life events and encouraging to mild up or down days, whereas men tend to cock an eyebrow and ask what you’re so excited/upset about when you show up to work “having feelings” on a random Tuesday because your spouse threw a fit about leftover spaghetti that morning.

The dichotomy is fascinating to me, to watch unfold every day with every interaction. I find myself (not correctly or incorrectly) leaning towards men in times of crisis (muted response), and towards women in times of -life in general- (exacerbated response) because it gives me the mean/median output of (normal human response).

However, this doesn’t mean men only have “regular” mode or “crisis” mode, or that women only live in an amplified wave of “normal” and “slightly less normal”, and I think that’s where we find our faults. Our definition of the masculine and the feminine revolve around a dead sun that no longer serves us well. Men ARE emotionally supportive, and women ARE reserved/stoic, it’s just not always what you expect at the time so it gets glossed over and deleted, to the detriment of everyone.

Women didn't have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.

Spitting straight-up facts.

Your perspective is absolutely welcome here! I'm transfemme myself

It's not only a question of men. If you want a romantic relationship, you need to fit the society's standards for the sex you are looking for. If women are looking for toxic virility, the sad truth is that men who embrace it will have an easier time finding a relationship.

This is not something you take from anyone. And this is the biggest problem many men have with the #metoo era: we acknowledge toxic masculinity is toxic and can even be deadly, but what is the alternative? There is none currently.

There is no model for modern men that is worthy of both modern men and women. This is why we have incels and other hardcore conservative going hard on hating women or even more toxic masculinity.

But I digress. The solution is not in a fight, it's in acceptance from both men and women.

Thank you for sharing. I haven't figured out the magic words to communicate this well. I worked at a company that proudly announced longer maternity care for newborns, an astounding (for the US) 6 months. Fathers got 2. I'm a dad and wasn't going to have any more kids, but some of us spoke up and suggested that dads deserve time with their children as well. It was explained that mothers have special connections with children (nursing) and are genetically (yuck) more loving caretakers. Their brains are wired for empathy, so they deserve more time. Remember when we all agreed it was awful to say men are better at logic and reasoning? Me neither because it was so long ago. How is this okay? And we wonder why far more women drop out of the workforce to become full time parents.

There's a theory that women quit to care for kids because they don't have enough support, so let's give them extra time off, extra health care benefits, recovery support, reinforcing stereotypes and gender roles. It's the most ass backward approach to what should be the goal to encourage husbands to take larger roles in families. When a man speaks up, he's part of the patriarchy, suppressing women's voices. Women need to be heard and supported, not mansplained. If anyone can suggest how to change the conversation without being labeled a bully while simultaneously being bullied, I would love to learn.

I don’t see this as an intrusion. I see it as a relevant, valuable perspective. Thank you!

First, this is a long comment, and I don't want to come off as dissing it. I agree with you. Except for that concluding thought.

I used to think that that was true, women vs. men for voting rights. But about ten years ago, I wandered into the Berkeley Historical Society. They had a bunch of materials on display about the women's suffrage movement, including just boxes of documents. One of the first ones that I pulled out was a poster for an anti-suffrage meeting. A meeting organized by women.

In fact, they had lots of documentation about anti-suffrage efforts by the society women of Berkeley. That completely shocked me, given Berkeley's crunchy reputation. But I did more research later, and found that it was not at all unusual.

Up until the early years of the 20th century, most women were against it! Even when the 15th Amendment passed, a large minority of women still opposed it. As well, quite a lot of men supported it. (Obviously, they had, to since they were the ones voting to pass it.)

Anyway, the framing of the issue as women demanding the vote from men is oversimplified.

Rather than intruding, transitioned individuals ought to be seen as the strongest allies - on both sides of the fence. The lived experience you being to the table is tremendously valuable because it is so indisputably valid.

but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.

Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.

Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn't enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.

Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.

I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.

I don't. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.

When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.

Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn't going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn't yield well.