Asklemmy

An issue I observe in kids is that children lack positive, physically available, male role models. Women can raise kids to be very tender and empathetic, but at some point most boys will start to model themselves after the men they see around them.

I guess the issue then exacerbate if they as adults are surrounded by only men who don't check each others behaviour, but I have no eyes in men-only groups.

I would not volunteer to socialise men, as I do enough free emotional labour for the men in my life as it is. I might consider it if it was well paid and didn't interfere with my actual job or hobbies. But honestly it sounds a bit scary, like the sort of event that would draw in angry hateful men who are looking for ways to be triggered by women speaking their mind, along with the ones open to learning, plus I abhor public speaking so it sounds like a terrible way to spend my precious time. Men need to be the ones modelling safe behaviour for boys, and men need to be the ones telling other men off when they behave like dogs and teach them how to control themselves.

I second the person saying dance lessons. There have been plenty of men in my group that have been shy or nervous or socially awkward, but everyone who follows dances with everyone who leads (which is usually but not exclusively a male/female split).

(Ps. Are you aware of asexuality? Might be something to look into for yourself)

Are you proposing “grooming” men to behave how you want them to?

This would hopefully be a compliment to something that addresses the root of the problem more like mandatory parenting and child psychology classes, for everybody.

Also, I think you would get more benefit from these types of behavior training classes if they were more general empathy classes. Not just how to treat women. How to treat children, for example. How to treat homeless people. How to treat other men.

This would probably create something like Pickup Artists.

If men are facing a loneliness epidemic, they could learn to be friends with one another, enjoy one anothers' company, and open up to one another about being lonely etc, instead of expecting women to train them.

I cant train men on how women want to be treated, and I wouldnt even want to tell men how women should be treated seeing as im not a woman.

Women want to be treated as equals to men, to be paid the same as men are, to be promoted in jobs as often as men are, and to be represented in government and media as much as men are. This is absolutely something that men can and should tell other men about.

Sounds like what you're interested in is a social skills class for autism. I've heard of them in theory but have never seen any actually available to adults. My therapist suggested I try to find an autism specialist, but like, do those even exist??

As for your social interests, you'll just have to go to public hobby groups and figure it out. The NTs also didn't have a handbook. You're interested in dance classes? Your local community center probably has some. It's ok to make mistakes, correct, and do better next time. Find ways to connect with people. Life is not going to be like "Oh I learned and am normal now" for us. We just get better at it than before. Also, women are just people. You'll get more comfortable around an individual the more time you spend with them.

So that leads us into the actual question: would you be willing to take a job where you pretty much just train men on how to act around/ treat women?

Nope, hard pass. Never been into the social field myself, because it's full of bullshit jobs. What would make this one any different than any of those "Life coach" jobs that promise to teach you all the secrets that will instantly fix you, as long as you have the money to keep paying for that "wisdom"?
Reality is, there is no single proven way to treat women. And if anyone claims that there is and they know it, it's a scam.

reminds me of the old joke.. 'q: how many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? a: only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change'

doesnt matter how good the training is if the person doesnt want it.

There's such a thing as a dating coach, if that's what you're asking. Try a web search.

Someone who thinks!

Slightly-incorrect-framing, but you are onto something..

Having women train males in social-process-competence ( & therefore in social-process-confidence ) would be good/useful.

( I'm an old male mind, btw, not a wymmin, obviously : )

The problem's more-fundamental than social-behavior, though:

People can be in the mere-animal stages-of-unconscious-mind-development, in which case unconsciousness, identity, hormones, & ego rule the whole world,

XOR people can be in self-conquering condition.

Civilization has eradicated that from our lives.

Tribal-villages used to allow males to measure themselves against the forces-of-nature until self-conquering was earned ( a kind of training which had a terrible slaughter-rate, for the number of successes ).

When we switched to feudalism, & industry-feudalism/oligarchy, we never put a proper growing-up-means for the more-testosterone-driven humans, so we broke self-conquering, leaving toxic-masculinity to fester..

It isn't domineering-others, it is conquering-one's-self, that is the ultimate Male condition, but the whole world ignores that, because the systems & processes in-place eradicate the potential from all the lives that the systems/processes can.

There was an article in Reader's Digest, possibly last-century, & a principal at a school had failed, & failed, & failed, to communicate to parents how different the learning-process NEEDS to be, for the yin ( girls, in his mind: I'm the one who threw-away the sex/gender, leaving only the yin/yang ), vs the yang.

Finally he knew:

He got the kids divided in the gym, girls on 1 side, boys on the other, & the parents up in the bleachers.

He asked the kids: "Who of you would rather learn in a quiet library?"

Nearly-all girls, few boys, hands went up.

"Who of you would rather learn in a boisterous classroom?"

Nearly-all boys, few girls, hands went up.

NOW the parents understood!!

The process required for growing-up boys is pushier than the process required for growing-up girls!!

There's a book ( glanced into the sample of it ) called "Balls: It Takes Some To Grow Some", written by a trans-man, iirc..

It's on the nature of male-culture..

The Problem, is that the "education" we've established on all kids DOESN'T respect yin-vs-yang nature, OR different-learning-speeds-in-different-subjects, OR truth, not institutional-authority, is THE decider of what is right ( teachers can be wrong ), OR correcting-the-learning-materials-when-they're-wrong, etc..

The WHOLE THING is "educating" our lives into defectiveness, instead of autonomy, competence, capability, & understanding.

& when you begin with that bedrock .. what kind of "masculinity" is going to grow??

Certainly-not the right kind, eh?

The more intellectually-pushy a learner is, the more-intellectually-pushy the training needs to be.

The more physically-pushy a learner is, the more-physically-pushy the training needs to be.

Etc.

With the goal being self-conquering, which isn't even on humankind's map, at the moment.

That social-process-training would do actual ( needed! ) good for many men, due to the wrong-education they were subjected-to is true.

But correcting-the-problem required re-engineering "education" into being growing lives, not breaking them for institutional-authority's-comfort, as John Taylor Gatto, NY State Teacher of the Year Award winner, learned.

( he discovered, after trashing his teaching-career by telling the truth, in the research he did later, that it was the coal industry who had paid for the education-establishment, so as to prevent any more Lincoln or Franklin types from occurring, & it worked )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis

John Taylor Gatto is the one who explained that a VALID ( & knowing they are valid ) child isn't manipulateable-by-the-institution the way the institution requires, for its status, among institutions, to be produced..

but a broken child, dependent on provisionally-bestowed-by-the-institution "approval", IS manipulateable.

THAT cracked-open much of middle-class-institution/gov't-institution bullying, for me ( gov't towns are worst for that ).

Social-competence, with associated social-confidence, is required, & your idea is right in correcting that problem..

but that problem isn't the fundamental one.

( also, broken-parenting due to parents not having livingwage, thereby economically enforcing attachment-disorder, is another fundamental-cause of the problems our current world is embodying )

You wanted males NOT contributing in the discussion, so downvote me, all, but the points stand on their-own, because they test to be true, & in my values, truth has rights, including the right-to-be-seen/heard.

_ /\ _