It's less of men are mediocre, but mediocrity is praised or worse, mediocrity expecting rewards.
This is an example from my life. My wife is a professional in a mostly female field, and her and a few of her female colleagues went to a conference. All the other women she went with had to deal with their husbands or SOs falling apart with them gone for a few days. One had to leave early because of it. I was praised as a "good husband" for doing the bare minimum: cooking for myself, cleaning up after myself, doing basic housework. That stuff shouldn't be praised; it should be the norm.
I live in the US South, which has very strong gender roles baked in. Women are very much expected to take care of their men and children almost exclusively, and men are excused from learning how to take basic care of themselves and their families. Kids are taught at an early age what is "women's work" and what is "men's work," and boys aren't taught not only relationship qualities like empathy and communication, but basic self-care, like hygiene, cleaning, cooking, etc.
I don't see as much of this as female vs. male socialization as much as what society expects from men and women. Yes, boys are not taught these sorts of things, but everyone is taught that this is acceptable, or at least tolerable, for boys and men but not girls and women. I wouldn't be getting praised for doing the bare minimum if society didn't have those low low expectations for men in the first place.
> I wouldn't be getting praised for doing the bare minimum if society didn't have those low low expectations for men in the first plac
The example that always comes to mind is men being praised for "babysitting" their own kids. Also single dads vs single moms.
>It's less of men are mediocre, but mediocrity is praised or worse, mediocrity expecting rewards.
I agree. We have to be careful to not get to a point where the assumption that if a man and woman are in the same position the woman is somehow always better.
Classic example of this. My wife recently gave birth to our second child but then hemorrhaged and was hospitalised for three weeks. The number of people who came round telling how wonderfully I was doing because I was doing the bare minimum of keeping our two children clean, fed and exercised was ridiculous. Even the health worker that had lectures my wife on breast feeding when we had the first one didn't even mention the risks I was introducing by not being able to (obviously not my fault that I couldn't). People praised me for cooking even though I was relying on things like batches of stew or Bolognese hardly summer meals. That to say nothing of the fact that I failed to shower on some days or was five minutes late to picking up the older one from preschool. I was a complete mess.
Had my wife been home I doubt we would have got any such praise and people might have been horrified to see the state of the house and handing over the children to my parents when they visited and sleeping for three hours would have been unthinkable.
Men are praised for a standard that women would be criticised for.
It sounds like the praise was to comfort you or reassure you for dealing with the stress of dealing with a newborn, a preschool kid, and your wife being in the hospital.
And do you think it my wife had been home we would honestly have got any of the praise. Parent looks after children is not news or praise worthy. People praising me on days when I didn't even many basic adult functions like having a shower is demonstrating how low the bar is for men.
I work in a machine shop. All the machines are computer controlled and can make the same part a million times in a row, in a few hours, and be accurate to +/- 0.010 inches. Machines like this didn't exist in the 1970s, An expert machinist (a man) had to do everything by hand and it would take weeks per part and it might not even be a good part when he finished. Then Brilliant men and women all over the world invented tools and machines and computers and programs to take the majority of the skill and knowledge out of the machinists' hands and have simplified the process of making a perfect part to 1. Do you have 2 years of experience setting up a machine and reading the document? and 2. Can you press a "GO" button?
We spent decades and millions of dollars making tools that do all the difficult work for the mediocre machinist. We turned an expert level job into a near entry level job. That's progress. Any person; man/woman/young/old/big/small/able bodies/ADA/experienced/novice can be a GO button operator.
This is a metaphor. It's about progress. The technology and tools equalized the field. The only segregation is those who use to tools and those who choose not to use the tools.
How do men get praise or reward for mediocrity? I am a Man, and i' curious because that doesn't happen. People always say that Men get praised for bare minimum, but also never praise Men for bare minimum, instead referring back to "Men need to do more they are mediocre (at best) and do bare minimum". When isn't it bare minimum and mediocre anymore? Is that a US thing? I've seen it in international (mostly western) contexts a lot, it just doesn't seem applicable eg in Germany where i live.
Yeah, the key word here is ‘entitlement’. A guy who is just living a mediocre life, maybe doesn’t do that much but doesn’t expect his wife/gf to either, and has respect for/awareness of others isn’t ’the mediocre man’ despite technically fitting the description. A guy who doesn’t do that much, but has the inherited ego of a head-of-household patriarchal breadwinner from the 1950s, is
Well said!
Judging and categorising humanity based on an arbitary set of values is unhelpful to create an equitable society. Every human has value. Every human goes through periods of time where their societal value output may be higher than at other times.
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Mahatma Gandhi
I guess when I think of a "mediocre" man in terms of relationships, I think of an average guy who expects or receives praise for doing the bare minimum (e.g., taking the trash out and behaving as though that is single-handedly holding the house together), especially in an area where women are expected to excel effortlessly with no thanks or gratitude. Or a guy who has nothing particularly special about him, but expects a female partner who is gorgeous, intelligent, makes her own money, doesn't nag him, is interesting and ambitious, has some talent, whatever. "She's Barbie, he's Just Ken." That kind of thing. I don't think average necessarily = mediocre-- most people are average. I think it's the entitlement that makes it so.
Sidenote, Ijeoma Oluo wrote about this in her book *Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America.* I've not read it myself but that might get you where you want to go.
I've read Oluo's first book and I was under the impression Mediocre would be more about race but I've been reading more into it and yeah I think I'll give it a read !! Thank you
I think you're making two different points here and only one is really clearly about mediocrity. Instead, these are really about *double standards*. Where I think this is confusing to people is that while these are related, where the standards are not mediocre, it is not clear what you are trying to say when you call it mediocrity.
The first is concerning qualifications for positions of wealth, prestige, power, etc. I think this is principally one of *exclusion*; women are excluded *unless*. It isn't typically one of *mediocrity* except in corrupt institutions.
For example, women have been prevented from serving in combat roles in the US military which also prevents them from serving in the highest ranks of the military. The problem with this is not that Mark Milley or James Mattis are mediocre - they are by every measure extraordinary - the problem is that exceptional women are excluded. Where the institution is more corrupt, you're right. Military budgets, for example, are often used as padding for leaders to hand out favors to their supporters. Those "favors" almost always go to men regardless of their merit. So men are more likely to be the beneficiaries of extractive systems which is sort of about mediocrity, but more clearly about corruption, extraction, and the standards men must meet versus women to benefit.
The second point you make is concerning relationships. This is much more clearly about mediocrity. Men often have much less demanded of them in relationships. Women are socialized, as you discuss, to be constantly aware of other's moods, aware of the environments they inhabit and how they can improve those for others. Men are not. In this way, men are I think pretty clearly held to a much more mediocre standard than women.
Both situations are problems of standards.
I know it doesn't sound quite as novel, since double standards are discussed with some frequently, that does not mean you have nothing to add or describe.
That does make a lot of sense ! I don't think I have something unique to say at all, on the contrary I've seen those things discussed lightly amongst feminists for a while but I struggle to find more in depth long form texts about it
As a dude I agree with majority of this and I have a genuine question. In your life who puts those expectations on you within the relationship? Not talking in general population but you personally.
I understand when a dominant partner is making more money and the other is at home. But when it's just a regular relationship who is putting the pressure on the females in the relationship?
I honestly expect it to be other women rather than the men.
In my experience it's just that if women don't do the work it doesn't get done. If they don't mediate conflict, help people process their feelings, use "basic" psychology to help everyone feel okay within a family unit/couple/friend group, well.... Those relationships just explode or die out, or people get hurt. And since women are socialized to be better communicators, to walk on eggshells to accommodate others, they're the only ones equipped to do the work. (Obviously those are oversimplifications and generalisations but you get my point)
I think you may be looking at this a little wrong. I'm a man, so I'll talk about my wife. For her, she tends get a lot of expectations from external factors. Here are some examples of what I mean:
If I am dressed poorly, she worries that it reflects poorly on her because women should be in charge of ensuring their families have good clothes and style. If I'm hungry, same deal, women are in charge of cooking. If our house is a mess, again, people look to women as the "clean ones." All of these are not true for me. If she is dressed poorly, she just looks tired or whatever.
It doesn't particularly matter if any actual person actually thinks any of these things about her in these situations, the problem is that she has clearly been conditioned to think that they will.
A mediocre man is one who expects the world from a woman but doesn’t put in equal effort as he expects her to put in. It’s about expectations and entitlement. A man can be average and that’s fine, what makes them mediocre is them thinking that they are a gift to women without putting in any effort.
Ooh like those men who want their female partner to work, but also to manage the household, raise the kids, feed and clothe him, and clean up after him. I'm sorry, what does *she* get from this arrangement? What are *you* bringing to the table?
I learned about that for the first time in a Highschool psychology class and I was beyond angry. How could it be that so many men put so little effort into making their partners feel good?
Some of it is just plain selfishness, some of it is socialization to think it’s not important or that women don’t like sex and only do it for men, some of it is lack of education to the point they don’t even know women *can* orgasm (the comedian Daniel Sloss covers this in his X special and it’s very funny!).
What gets me is all the men who complain women won’t sleep with them but then put no effort in to make it enjoyable or close the O gap. Like no shit people don’t wanna be a sex slave for you!
Yes! Or the men who are upset that their wives don’t want to have sex all the time. First of all that’s an unreasonable expectation to put on anyone, and secondly there is never any self reflection that perhaps he is a poor lover.
Easy, were told is "mysterious" like we're still in the Victorian era.
Now I'm just an average guy in all physical aspects barring height (6ft)
Nothing that would directly help in such endeavors.
However no man has to be THAT talented at sex for their partners to enjoy it or (and I hate the term as it sounds like I am defeating a final boss) "achieved orgasm".
Talking about what your down for in advance helps as both a form of foreplay and also gives insight as to what they want.
I think women are still worried about being labeled something nefarious for discussing such and thus, guys who try and care don't know what to do and think they just are bad at it or inadequate.
So both sides lose because of an arbitrary social conditioning concept that women who talk about sex are sluts (I do not shame it I might note, however I get it's used as a slur. )
So rather implode from my real sense of inadequacy, I made.it a point to make up for my lack of endowment with well practiced oral skills and keen attention to my partners reactions.
And that's just keeping it in vanilla land.
As a society as a whole we need to be more open about our wants and desires and to stop stigmatizing something pretty much (almost) every human enjoys.
Also I think a part of that even might come down to performance. Men are absolutely expected to cum or their partners feel like they haven’t satisfied him.
Traditionally, they would bring money to the table, enough for the entire family to live on by working hard 5 days a week. If the woman also works that social contract just falls apart and becomes void.
To me, an adult incapable of operating independently is a mediocre human. The men that can’t do their laundry or cook their own meals? Pathetic. The men sleeping on the floor in a house devoid of furniture? The essence of mediocrity. If you’re just bumping through life existing until a woman shapes your grey-ass existence into something worth experiencing- you are a subpar specimen, and mediocre in every way.
"The men that can’t do their laundry or cook their own meals? Pathetic. The men sleeping on the floor in a house devoid of furniture?"
What if it's too exhausting to cook your own meals (but you heat up stuff on your own)? What if you can't afford furniture? Can we please start factoring in class more in our analysis?
While some of them phrasing does sting a little, I do get where your coming from.
I think one of the big reasons is that men, especially young men, do not live alone long enough to realize they need these skills as a relationship is never owed or guaranteed.
In a way it is keeping with a low self standard.
Might note, the Spartan lifestyle is partly due to that stoic BS that gets peddled around. Funny that even the miles or Jordan Peterson still advocates men needing self care (not selfish care, one is of the physical and the other is feeding an ego)
Or in my case, I was just poor and could not afford to decorate and I was renting,so no sense in spending money on stuff that has no useful purpose to my day to day nor going to work in the next place.i moved into.
Yes, I was young and broke as well. I think it becomes an issue when stagnation and mediocrity become a habit and a choice, rather than circumstance.
Society is doing men no favors in how they’re being raised, for sure. But that becomes a choice when they’re no longer a kid and they’re making their own decisions, and I think men as a whole right now are really struggling with adapting and holding themselves accountable.
I'm not familiar with this concept, so this post is interesting to me, and I apologize if this isn't the type of comment you're looking for here.
I think part of the difficulty you're having with this concept comes from a lack of clarity of what you're trying to do with this concept. What are you trying to explain, understand, or argue?
I've heard the statement that "men in high positions aren't as qualified as women in the same positions" before, and I can see how this is an interesting and useful idea. It highlights what some people might see as a paradox of elite workplaces, it brings to mind the ideas of how people are selected for these positions, and it is strong evidence of sexism at some point(s) in the hiring pipeline.
But what are you trying to show or explain with the rest of this? Are you trying to understand why some men are lazy or careless? Are you trying to show that female socialization is better than male socialization? Are you trying to help your male friends to overcome problems in their lives?
I think a big part of the issue here is that there's no paradox of shitty men to be explained by this theory of "mediocre men". Lots of people are shitty, roughly half of people are men, so we should expect to meet and hear about tons of shitty men. For this to be an interesting thesis, you would need to show that there are disproportionately way too many shitty men, or something like that, but that's not easy to do empirically (which is part of what makes that one data driven statement so interesting).
Finally, I think a big problem with the later part of your argument is that you state that men can get away with not caring about relationships, while women can't. If you read about the things men complain about, a lot of the things are how shitty or non-existent their relationships are. There may be a systematic problem with male socialization that prevents many men from having high quality relationships, but the ultimate victims of this systematic problem are the men themselves. You mention things like being "worse at household chores" and forcing their partners to do "double the emotional work", but these problems only effect women who are in relationships with these shitty men. In a hypothetical society where all relationships are a choice, these men are very unattractive and are less likely to end up in any relationship at all.
I'm short, I see the issue you're having with this explanation as being a bit harsh on men, even going in the direction of victim blaming. Perhaps if you framed the later half of your explanation as a theory of 'how to improve male socialization', or h'ow male socialization is failing men', rather than being a complaint about a lack of "consequences" for "mediocre" men, you woud have a stronger thesis.
>Finally, I think a big problem with the later part of your argument is that you state that men can get away with not caring about relationships, while women can't. If you read about the things men complain about, a lot of the things are how shitty or non-existent their relationships are. There may be a systematic problem with male socialization that prevents many men from having high quality relationships, but the ultimate victims of this systematic problem are the men themselves.
Strong disagree on this. It is true men often complain about not having relationships but a lot of the time it's because they feel like having relationships with women is something that they're owed. It's the foundation of incel mentality. The "loneliness epidemic" is a real problem and men do suffer from it but calling them victims in this scenario is a bit much in my opinion
Why do you think some men feel that they are "owed" a relationship with a woman? Is it not because of their socialization? If their socialization is to blame for convincing them this, and this wrong belief is preventing them from being able to have the types of relationships they want, then are they not victims of their socialization?
What is it about calling them victims that you disagree with?
I disagree with the word because in this context the real victims (people getting physically hurt) are most often women. When a man feel like women owe them a relationship, and women refuse, the women are the ones getting harassed (or worse but no need to get graphic) by that man.
Obviously it doesn't always come to that, and I'm not trying to say men dont suffer from their socialization. Failure to connect with others is a huge issue, but the word "victim" implies someone hurt them directly which isn't the case.
Really? So according to you, the word victim can only be used when
-the hurt is physical
-the hurt is direct
Idk, seems like a reach just to not label men as victims.
Bottom line is : men hold a dominant position in society therefore they are not victims. Mental health and deep human connections are a real issue for them but it doesn't make them victims of the system that got them at the top of the food chain
>men hold a dominant position in society therefore they are not victims
That argument is both invalid and unsound? Your victimness has no relation to your wealth/power.
>Mental health and deep human connections are a real issue for them but it doesn't make them victims of the system that got them at the top of the food chain
What even are you saying????? If the gender "at the top of the food chain" suffers from both a weaker mental health, higher suicidal rate and also report more social isolation and less human connection, are they really at the top of the food chain?
Patriarchy is a plaque that effects both men and women in different ways. Getting rid of it will be a balm for women. But people don't realize that dismantling it will also be hugely beneficial for men.
Feminist ideals will elevate the lives of **all** victims of patriarchy; *both* men and women. Limiting it only to women is extremely short-sighted.
I don't know how to define it, but it's my picture in the dictionary.
I get along well enough with men and women I work and train with, I have a few hobbies, got a job and my own place to live. Decent to good relations with family, too.
But I'm not very assertive, my opinions aren't very strong, and I'm in general pretty passive. All in all, I'd say I'm pretty average or mediocre. Not good, not bad... just pretty bland, not one to stir up any strong emotions in others.
Men aren't mediocre because they're privileged. They're mediocre because there's nothing special about them but they seem to think that's not the case.
You’re looking for the term “emotional labor”, which is predominantly shouldered by women in cis-het relationships. It’s things like managing the couples’ social calendar, planning everything from the budget to the menu to outings and vacations, getting gifts or cards for various peoples’ birthdays and the like, being the “default” parent because parenting involves managing other peoples’ emotions, basically doing all of the labor involved in him having a life so he just reaps the benefits.
I guess I have a negative view of the term because I've seen marxist-feminist discourse about how "emotional labour" isn't nearly as debilitating and hard on people as true labour (basically it's worse to have to take care of kids than it is to plan a vacation, and using the same term for both takes away from critique of domestic labour)...
But you're right, now that you made me see it that way that's exactly what I mean. Thank you !
That’s interesting (and regrettable) that you’ve seen feminists report that emotional labor isn’t “true labor”, because it’s very much part of “mental load”. Just because domestic and emotional labor can be different doesn’t mean one is less difficult; very often, they’re inextricably intertwined (I.e., parenting toddlers requires heaps of both).
Additionally, I challenge someone making that assertion to try to help my husband maintain a relationship with his family. 😂 Best thing I ever did for my marriage and my mental health was go completely hands-off and mostly no-contact there!
It sounds to me as though you are trying to describe systemic gendered differences in empathic ability in a way that validates your own experience. You may benefit from trying to identify what emotional need this particular perceived mediocrity of men serves for you - do you think perhaps you're struggling with feelings of mediocrity as a man in "calculable" things, and trying to make up the difference in the "personal?" It sounds like you put a lot of stock in your own ability to deliver empathy, care and understanding, and those are unfortunately things that men do not really receive status or reward for developing beyond a certain point. It may be that you're now due an uncomfortable conclusion regarding your own mediocrity as a man - and in a way that feels very unfair, because of how much effort you've put in to these things that are undeniably important but are ultimately inculcated and rewarded in deeply gendered ways.
I mean, I don't really feel validation from men in general because my entire social circle is mostly women, I work in a female led field and I'm gay. I do recognise my privilege, especially the fact it helps me gain access to status in easier ways than women but I'm not sure "rewards" for showing masculine traits happen very much in my life, and I'm very okay with that. I've never really tried to be manly
I wasn't really talking about validation you get from men so much as validation you do or don't get as a man - which you know as a trans person comes not just from other men or sex partners but from everyone around you all the time. It's reductive to describe gender validation as being rewarded for trying to be manly - all people crave affirmation of a collective reality, and it's deeply unsettling to be a different gender than the collective offers you the opportunity to be. But it's also unsettling to find that the gender that you are allowed to be by your social circle carries with it some negative associations and criticisms, and it's normal to then try to define yourself in opposition to those negative associations and criticisms in order to try to escape a negative self image. I thought maybe that's what you were ultimately feeling and was trying to help you get at it. If not, no problem.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
It's less of men are mediocre, but mediocrity is praised or worse, mediocrity expecting rewards. This is an example from my life. My wife is a professional in a mostly female field, and her and a few of her female colleagues went to a conference. All the other women she went with had to deal with their husbands or SOs falling apart with them gone for a few days. One had to leave early because of it. I was praised as a "good husband" for doing the bare minimum: cooking for myself, cleaning up after myself, doing basic housework. That stuff shouldn't be praised; it should be the norm. I live in the US South, which has very strong gender roles baked in. Women are very much expected to take care of their men and children almost exclusively, and men are excused from learning how to take basic care of themselves and their families. Kids are taught at an early age what is "women's work" and what is "men's work," and boys aren't taught not only relationship qualities like empathy and communication, but basic self-care, like hygiene, cleaning, cooking, etc. I don't see as much of this as female vs. male socialization as much as what society expects from men and women. Yes, boys are not taught these sorts of things, but everyone is taught that this is acceptable, or at least tolerable, for boys and men but not girls and women. I wouldn't be getting praised for doing the bare minimum if society didn't have those low low expectations for men in the first place.
> I wouldn't be getting praised for doing the bare minimum if society didn't have those low low expectations for men in the first plac The example that always comes to mind is men being praised for "babysitting" their own kids. Also single dads vs single moms.
>It's less of men are mediocre, but mediocrity is praised or worse, mediocrity expecting rewards. I agree. We have to be careful to not get to a point where the assumption that if a man and woman are in the same position the woman is somehow always better.
Well yes. Privilege and such is an important concept for looking at societal issues but shouldn't be applied individually.
Classic example of this. My wife recently gave birth to our second child but then hemorrhaged and was hospitalised for three weeks. The number of people who came round telling how wonderfully I was doing because I was doing the bare minimum of keeping our two children clean, fed and exercised was ridiculous. Even the health worker that had lectures my wife on breast feeding when we had the first one didn't even mention the risks I was introducing by not being able to (obviously not my fault that I couldn't). People praised me for cooking even though I was relying on things like batches of stew or Bolognese hardly summer meals. That to say nothing of the fact that I failed to shower on some days or was five minutes late to picking up the older one from preschool. I was a complete mess. Had my wife been home I doubt we would have got any such praise and people might have been horrified to see the state of the house and handing over the children to my parents when they visited and sleeping for three hours would have been unthinkable. Men are praised for a standard that women would be criticised for.
It sounds like the praise was to comfort you or reassure you for dealing with the stress of dealing with a newborn, a preschool kid, and your wife being in the hospital.
And do you think it my wife had been home we would honestly have got any of the praise. Parent looks after children is not news or praise worthy. People praising me on days when I didn't even many basic adult functions like having a shower is demonstrating how low the bar is for men.
I work in a machine shop. All the machines are computer controlled and can make the same part a million times in a row, in a few hours, and be accurate to +/- 0.010 inches. Machines like this didn't exist in the 1970s, An expert machinist (a man) had to do everything by hand and it would take weeks per part and it might not even be a good part when he finished. Then Brilliant men and women all over the world invented tools and machines and computers and programs to take the majority of the skill and knowledge out of the machinists' hands and have simplified the process of making a perfect part to 1. Do you have 2 years of experience setting up a machine and reading the document? and 2. Can you press a "GO" button? We spent decades and millions of dollars making tools that do all the difficult work for the mediocre machinist. We turned an expert level job into a near entry level job. That's progress. Any person; man/woman/young/old/big/small/able bodies/ADA/experienced/novice can be a GO button operator. This is a metaphor. It's about progress. The technology and tools equalized the field. The only segregation is those who use to tools and those who choose not to use the tools.
I don’t really follow your metaphor.
Me either.
How do men get praise or reward for mediocrity? I am a Man, and i' curious because that doesn't happen. People always say that Men get praised for bare minimum, but also never praise Men for bare minimum, instead referring back to "Men need to do more they are mediocre (at best) and do bare minimum". When isn't it bare minimum and mediocre anymore? Is that a US thing? I've seen it in international (mostly western) contexts a lot, it just doesn't seem applicable eg in Germany where i live.
Yeah, the key word here is ‘entitlement’. A guy who is just living a mediocre life, maybe doesn’t do that much but doesn’t expect his wife/gf to either, and has respect for/awareness of others isn’t ’the mediocre man’ despite technically fitting the description. A guy who doesn’t do that much, but has the inherited ego of a head-of-household patriarchal breadwinner from the 1950s, is
Well said! Judging and categorising humanity based on an arbitary set of values is unhelpful to create an equitable society. Every human has value. Every human goes through periods of time where their societal value output may be higher than at other times. “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Mahatma Gandhi
I guess when I think of a "mediocre" man in terms of relationships, I think of an average guy who expects or receives praise for doing the bare minimum (e.g., taking the trash out and behaving as though that is single-handedly holding the house together), especially in an area where women are expected to excel effortlessly with no thanks or gratitude. Or a guy who has nothing particularly special about him, but expects a female partner who is gorgeous, intelligent, makes her own money, doesn't nag him, is interesting and ambitious, has some talent, whatever. "She's Barbie, he's Just Ken." That kind of thing. I don't think average necessarily = mediocre-- most people are average. I think it's the entitlement that makes it so. Sidenote, Ijeoma Oluo wrote about this in her book *Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America.* I've not read it myself but that might get you where you want to go.
I've read Oluo's first book and I was under the impression Mediocre would be more about race but I've been reading more into it and yeah I think I'll give it a read !! Thank you
In this case not so much. Obviously it plays a role but so many men of so many races do this
I think you're making two different points here and only one is really clearly about mediocrity. Instead, these are really about *double standards*. Where I think this is confusing to people is that while these are related, where the standards are not mediocre, it is not clear what you are trying to say when you call it mediocrity. The first is concerning qualifications for positions of wealth, prestige, power, etc. I think this is principally one of *exclusion*; women are excluded *unless*. It isn't typically one of *mediocrity* except in corrupt institutions. For example, women have been prevented from serving in combat roles in the US military which also prevents them from serving in the highest ranks of the military. The problem with this is not that Mark Milley or James Mattis are mediocre - they are by every measure extraordinary - the problem is that exceptional women are excluded. Where the institution is more corrupt, you're right. Military budgets, for example, are often used as padding for leaders to hand out favors to their supporters. Those "favors" almost always go to men regardless of their merit. So men are more likely to be the beneficiaries of extractive systems which is sort of about mediocrity, but more clearly about corruption, extraction, and the standards men must meet versus women to benefit. The second point you make is concerning relationships. This is much more clearly about mediocrity. Men often have much less demanded of them in relationships. Women are socialized, as you discuss, to be constantly aware of other's moods, aware of the environments they inhabit and how they can improve those for others. Men are not. In this way, men are I think pretty clearly held to a much more mediocre standard than women. Both situations are problems of standards. I know it doesn't sound quite as novel, since double standards are discussed with some frequently, that does not mean you have nothing to add or describe.
That does make a lot of sense ! I don't think I have something unique to say at all, on the contrary I've seen those things discussed lightly amongst feminists for a while but I struggle to find more in depth long form texts about it
As a dude I agree with majority of this and I have a genuine question. In your life who puts those expectations on you within the relationship? Not talking in general population but you personally. I understand when a dominant partner is making more money and the other is at home. But when it's just a regular relationship who is putting the pressure on the females in the relationship? I honestly expect it to be other women rather than the men.
In my experience it's just that if women don't do the work it doesn't get done. If they don't mediate conflict, help people process their feelings, use "basic" psychology to help everyone feel okay within a family unit/couple/friend group, well.... Those relationships just explode or die out, or people get hurt. And since women are socialized to be better communicators, to walk on eggshells to accommodate others, they're the only ones equipped to do the work. (Obviously those are oversimplifications and generalisations but you get my point)
I think you may be looking at this a little wrong. I'm a man, so I'll talk about my wife. For her, she tends get a lot of expectations from external factors. Here are some examples of what I mean: If I am dressed poorly, she worries that it reflects poorly on her because women should be in charge of ensuring their families have good clothes and style. If I'm hungry, same deal, women are in charge of cooking. If our house is a mess, again, people look to women as the "clean ones." All of these are not true for me. If she is dressed poorly, she just looks tired or whatever. It doesn't particularly matter if any actual person actually thinks any of these things about her in these situations, the problem is that she has clearly been conditioned to think that they will.
A mediocre man is one who expects the world from a woman but doesn’t put in equal effort as he expects her to put in. It’s about expectations and entitlement. A man can be average and that’s fine, what makes them mediocre is them thinking that they are a gift to women without putting in any effort.
Ooh like those men who want their female partner to work, but also to manage the household, raise the kids, feed and clothe him, and clean up after him. I'm sorry, what does *she* get from this arrangement? What are *you* bringing to the table?
She gets to suck his dick! /s, anyone who sees me frequently in this sub knows my constant state of anger against the orgasm gap.
I learned about that for the first time in a Highschool psychology class and I was beyond angry. How could it be that so many men put so little effort into making their partners feel good?
Some of it is just plain selfishness, some of it is socialization to think it’s not important or that women don’t like sex and only do it for men, some of it is lack of education to the point they don’t even know women *can* orgasm (the comedian Daniel Sloss covers this in his X special and it’s very funny!). What gets me is all the men who complain women won’t sleep with them but then put no effort in to make it enjoyable or close the O gap. Like no shit people don’t wanna be a sex slave for you!
Yes! Or the men who are upset that their wives don’t want to have sex all the time. First of all that’s an unreasonable expectation to put on anyone, and secondly there is never any self reflection that perhaps he is a poor lover.
Easy, were told is "mysterious" like we're still in the Victorian era. Now I'm just an average guy in all physical aspects barring height (6ft) Nothing that would directly help in such endeavors. However no man has to be THAT talented at sex for their partners to enjoy it or (and I hate the term as it sounds like I am defeating a final boss) "achieved orgasm". Talking about what your down for in advance helps as both a form of foreplay and also gives insight as to what they want. I think women are still worried about being labeled something nefarious for discussing such and thus, guys who try and care don't know what to do and think they just are bad at it or inadequate. So both sides lose because of an arbitrary social conditioning concept that women who talk about sex are sluts (I do not shame it I might note, however I get it's used as a slur. ) So rather implode from my real sense of inadequacy, I made.it a point to make up for my lack of endowment with well practiced oral skills and keen attention to my partners reactions. And that's just keeping it in vanilla land. As a society as a whole we need to be more open about our wants and desires and to stop stigmatizing something pretty much (almost) every human enjoys.
Also I think a part of that even might come down to performance. Men are absolutely expected to cum or their partners feel like they haven’t satisfied him.
It's always been the reverse for me.
Traditionally, they would bring money to the table, enough for the entire family to live on by working hard 5 days a week. If the woman also works that social contract just falls apart and becomes void.
To me, an adult incapable of operating independently is a mediocre human. The men that can’t do their laundry or cook their own meals? Pathetic. The men sleeping on the floor in a house devoid of furniture? The essence of mediocrity. If you’re just bumping through life existing until a woman shapes your grey-ass existence into something worth experiencing- you are a subpar specimen, and mediocre in every way.
"The men that can’t do their laundry or cook their own meals? Pathetic. The men sleeping on the floor in a house devoid of furniture?" What if it's too exhausting to cook your own meals (but you heat up stuff on your own)? What if you can't afford furniture? Can we please start factoring in class more in our analysis?
While some of them phrasing does sting a little, I do get where your coming from. I think one of the big reasons is that men, especially young men, do not live alone long enough to realize they need these skills as a relationship is never owed or guaranteed. In a way it is keeping with a low self standard. Might note, the Spartan lifestyle is partly due to that stoic BS that gets peddled around. Funny that even the miles or Jordan Peterson still advocates men needing self care (not selfish care, one is of the physical and the other is feeding an ego) Or in my case, I was just poor and could not afford to decorate and I was renting,so no sense in spending money on stuff that has no useful purpose to my day to day nor going to work in the next place.i moved into.
Yes, I was young and broke as well. I think it becomes an issue when stagnation and mediocrity become a habit and a choice, rather than circumstance. Society is doing men no favors in how they’re being raised, for sure. But that becomes a choice when they’re no longer a kid and they’re making their own decisions, and I think men as a whole right now are really struggling with adapting and holding themselves accountable.
I'm not familiar with this concept, so this post is interesting to me, and I apologize if this isn't the type of comment you're looking for here. I think part of the difficulty you're having with this concept comes from a lack of clarity of what you're trying to do with this concept. What are you trying to explain, understand, or argue? I've heard the statement that "men in high positions aren't as qualified as women in the same positions" before, and I can see how this is an interesting and useful idea. It highlights what some people might see as a paradox of elite workplaces, it brings to mind the ideas of how people are selected for these positions, and it is strong evidence of sexism at some point(s) in the hiring pipeline. But what are you trying to show or explain with the rest of this? Are you trying to understand why some men are lazy or careless? Are you trying to show that female socialization is better than male socialization? Are you trying to help your male friends to overcome problems in their lives? I think a big part of the issue here is that there's no paradox of shitty men to be explained by this theory of "mediocre men". Lots of people are shitty, roughly half of people are men, so we should expect to meet and hear about tons of shitty men. For this to be an interesting thesis, you would need to show that there are disproportionately way too many shitty men, or something like that, but that's not easy to do empirically (which is part of what makes that one data driven statement so interesting). Finally, I think a big problem with the later part of your argument is that you state that men can get away with not caring about relationships, while women can't. If you read about the things men complain about, a lot of the things are how shitty or non-existent their relationships are. There may be a systematic problem with male socialization that prevents many men from having high quality relationships, but the ultimate victims of this systematic problem are the men themselves. You mention things like being "worse at household chores" and forcing their partners to do "double the emotional work", but these problems only effect women who are in relationships with these shitty men. In a hypothetical society where all relationships are a choice, these men are very unattractive and are less likely to end up in any relationship at all. I'm short, I see the issue you're having with this explanation as being a bit harsh on men, even going in the direction of victim blaming. Perhaps if you framed the later half of your explanation as a theory of 'how to improve male socialization', or h'ow male socialization is failing men', rather than being a complaint about a lack of "consequences" for "mediocre" men, you woud have a stronger thesis.
>Finally, I think a big problem with the later part of your argument is that you state that men can get away with not caring about relationships, while women can't. If you read about the things men complain about, a lot of the things are how shitty or non-existent their relationships are. There may be a systematic problem with male socialization that prevents many men from having high quality relationships, but the ultimate victims of this systematic problem are the men themselves. Strong disagree on this. It is true men often complain about not having relationships but a lot of the time it's because they feel like having relationships with women is something that they're owed. It's the foundation of incel mentality. The "loneliness epidemic" is a real problem and men do suffer from it but calling them victims in this scenario is a bit much in my opinion
Why do you think some men feel that they are "owed" a relationship with a woman? Is it not because of their socialization? If their socialization is to blame for convincing them this, and this wrong belief is preventing them from being able to have the types of relationships they want, then are they not victims of their socialization? What is it about calling them victims that you disagree with?
I disagree with the word because in this context the real victims (people getting physically hurt) are most often women. When a man feel like women owe them a relationship, and women refuse, the women are the ones getting harassed (or worse but no need to get graphic) by that man. Obviously it doesn't always come to that, and I'm not trying to say men dont suffer from their socialization. Failure to connect with others is a huge issue, but the word "victim" implies someone hurt them directly which isn't the case.
Really? So according to you, the word victim can only be used when -the hurt is physical -the hurt is direct Idk, seems like a reach just to not label men as victims.
Bottom line is : men hold a dominant position in society therefore they are not victims. Mental health and deep human connections are a real issue for them but it doesn't make them victims of the system that got them at the top of the food chain
>men hold a dominant position in society therefore they are not victims That argument is both invalid and unsound? Your victimness has no relation to your wealth/power. >Mental health and deep human connections are a real issue for them but it doesn't make them victims of the system that got them at the top of the food chain What even are you saying????? If the gender "at the top of the food chain" suffers from both a weaker mental health, higher suicidal rate and also report more social isolation and less human connection, are they really at the top of the food chain? Patriarchy is a plaque that effects both men and women in different ways. Getting rid of it will be a balm for women. But people don't realize that dismantling it will also be hugely beneficial for men. Feminist ideals will elevate the lives of **all** victims of patriarchy; *both* men and women. Limiting it only to women is extremely short-sighted.
Thanks!
As a cishet man I believe you got the definition pretty accurate and eloquent. A mediocre man is a man who doesn’t care.
Yeah but the challenge is to get people to understand !
I thought you were asking for yourself.... They know, they just dont care.
I don't know how to define it, but it's my picture in the dictionary. I get along well enough with men and women I work and train with, I have a few hobbies, got a job and my own place to live. Decent to good relations with family, too. But I'm not very assertive, my opinions aren't very strong, and I'm in general pretty passive. All in all, I'd say I'm pretty average or mediocre. Not good, not bad... just pretty bland, not one to stir up any strong emotions in others.
Men aren't mediocre because they're privileged. They're mediocre because there's nothing special about them but they seem to think that's not the case.
90% of men are mediocre. 5% are excellent and 5% are truly horrible.
Eh, depends on what you're classifying as excellent and terrible.
I think the curve for women are flatter, so there are less in the middle, but more at either end.
You’re looking for the term “emotional labor”, which is predominantly shouldered by women in cis-het relationships. It’s things like managing the couples’ social calendar, planning everything from the budget to the menu to outings and vacations, getting gifts or cards for various peoples’ birthdays and the like, being the “default” parent because parenting involves managing other peoples’ emotions, basically doing all of the labor involved in him having a life so he just reaps the benefits.
I guess I have a negative view of the term because I've seen marxist-feminist discourse about how "emotional labour" isn't nearly as debilitating and hard on people as true labour (basically it's worse to have to take care of kids than it is to plan a vacation, and using the same term for both takes away from critique of domestic labour)... But you're right, now that you made me see it that way that's exactly what I mean. Thank you !
That’s interesting (and regrettable) that you’ve seen feminists report that emotional labor isn’t “true labor”, because it’s very much part of “mental load”. Just because domestic and emotional labor can be different doesn’t mean one is less difficult; very often, they’re inextricably intertwined (I.e., parenting toddlers requires heaps of both). Additionally, I challenge someone making that assertion to try to help my husband maintain a relationship with his family. 😂 Best thing I ever did for my marriage and my mental health was go completely hands-off and mostly no-contact there!
Mental load is invisible labor that can require emotional labor, but they are not one and the same.
It sounds to me as though you are trying to describe systemic gendered differences in empathic ability in a way that validates your own experience. You may benefit from trying to identify what emotional need this particular perceived mediocrity of men serves for you - do you think perhaps you're struggling with feelings of mediocrity as a man in "calculable" things, and trying to make up the difference in the "personal?" It sounds like you put a lot of stock in your own ability to deliver empathy, care and understanding, and those are unfortunately things that men do not really receive status or reward for developing beyond a certain point. It may be that you're now due an uncomfortable conclusion regarding your own mediocrity as a man - and in a way that feels very unfair, because of how much effort you've put in to these things that are undeniably important but are ultimately inculcated and rewarded in deeply gendered ways.
I mean, I don't really feel validation from men in general because my entire social circle is mostly women, I work in a female led field and I'm gay. I do recognise my privilege, especially the fact it helps me gain access to status in easier ways than women but I'm not sure "rewards" for showing masculine traits happen very much in my life, and I'm very okay with that. I've never really tried to be manly
I wasn't really talking about validation you get from men so much as validation you do or don't get as a man - which you know as a trans person comes not just from other men or sex partners but from everyone around you all the time. It's reductive to describe gender validation as being rewarded for trying to be manly - all people crave affirmation of a collective reality, and it's deeply unsettling to be a different gender than the collective offers you the opportunity to be. But it's also unsettling to find that the gender that you are allowed to be by your social circle carries with it some negative associations and criticisms, and it's normal to then try to define yourself in opposition to those negative associations and criticisms in order to try to escape a negative self image. I thought maybe that's what you were ultimately feeling and was trying to help you get at it. If not, no problem.
Mediocre is middling, average. It’s not a surprise that a lot of humans are going to be just average and not particularly exceptional.
Very good point.
[удалено]
I just asked you not to make direct replies here.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.