I hear a lot today about Masculinity. How its in crisis. Men apparently dont know which way to go. Men are the cause of all todays problems. Men are privilidged, the patriarchy etc etc.


As a forum most likely featuring a majority of male members, I'm interested in your views on this subject.

is masculinity in crisis? if so what can we do to improve it?

do we need to reject traditional ideas of masculinity? are they 'toxic?'

Do men need to talk about their feelings more, or is it Ok to suppress them in certain situations?

Does GW (and other mainly male oriented media like video games) propagate ideas of that toxic masculinity in its portrayal of space marines, etc? (no female SM talk please, that is covered elsewhere)

Personally I think that masculinity is in a sort of crisis, but not in the way portrayed by the media. I think the modern man is forced to suppress a lot of the good masculine qualities he posesses, and as a result, often engages in alternative outputs which propagate the idea of toxicity which is then jumped on by the media.

I believe that masculinity is vitally important for any culture, and to dismiss it as unnecessary is folly.

There are so many links to things related to this, so I just picked a few that I thought were pertinent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45908983

https://medium.com/s/man-interrupted/why-we-must-stop-saying-toxic-masculinity-cfe83b9034dc

This one sums up my feelings on the issue pretty well.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/celebrate-masks-masculinity/

I think "masculinity" and "femininity" are, to a large degree, social constructs. Like much of modern society, they may well have had some specific, evolutionary origin far back in the mists of time, but their perpetuation long ago became much more a matter of tradition socialised into children at a young age and reinforced by social expectations.

I think boiling down something as complex as a human being to one of two standardised "blocks" of behaviours and traits is ludicrously reductive and essentialist.

That said, I also think criticism of power and behaviour has become excessively gendered of late. Patriarchy is only one facet of the Power Hierarchy, and characterising negative behaviours which are universal among the powerful as male because the present structure of society tends towards men being more powerful is short-sighted and counter productive.

It's honestly something that I don't even consider at all.
I just go through each day being me.
I don't care about being masculine or what some people think about me because of my genetic gender.
I have no interest in activities that make you a man (like getting drunk and beating up old ladies) and if a woman scoffs at me for politely holding a door open I close it and walk away.

You first need to explore what is meant by Toxic Masculinity.

Simply being male, is not a toxic experience. Being into traditionally blokey/manly interests and pursuits, is not in itself toxic.

What is meant (in very broad terms) by toxic is when you can't simply be yourself, for fear of not being seen as masculine, and worse, possibly being seen as feminine.

Look at the Incel nonsense. That? That is a prime example of toxic masculinity. It engenders a feeling of worthlessness and resentment that you're not a strapping 6' beefcake that apparently is the only thing women find attractive. That leads into the sneaking suspicion/full blown paranoia that women only want you for your resources, and will cheat on you at a moments notice.

That is incredibly toxic to the individual, and to society.

Me? I've mostly had it alright. Through absolutely no effort, I'm 6'2", 17 stone without being tubby, full beard, thick head of hair (which I admit I dye, rather look like Hagrid than Gandalf myself). I've also got a good job (luck and hard work there) which more than pays the bills, and have a sufficiently large flat to have a permanent lodger, which means more money for me as well.

Yet even I have fallen victim to the toxic side this year, when due to the general 'Men Don't Talk About That', I wound up signed off work for three months with stress, depression and anxiety. I've since sought help, received help, continue to receive help, and am back at work.

Nobody but the most raving of nutters are saying masculinity is in itself toxic. There's nowt wrong with being a big manly man. But when you feel that's what you must be? That's when the problems come in.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You first need to explore what is meant by Toxic Masculinity.

Simply being male, is not a toxic experience. Being into traditionally blokey/manly interests and pursuits, is not in itself toxic.

What is meant (in very broad terms) by toxic is when you can't simply be yourself, for fear of not being seen as masculine, and worse, possibly being seen as feminine.

Look at the Incel nonsense. That? That is a prime example of toxic masculinity. It engenders a feeling of worthlessness and resentment that you're not a strapping 6' beefcake that apparently is the only thing women find attractive. That leads into the sneaking suspicion/full blown paranoia that women only want you for your resources, and will cheat on you at a moments notice.

That is incredibly toxic to the individual, and to society.

Me? I've mostly had it alright. Through absolutely no effort, I'm 6'2", 17 stone without being tubby, full beard, thick head of hair (which I admit I dye, rather look like Hagrid than Gandalf myself). I've also got a good job (luck and hard work there) which more than pays the bills, and have a sufficiently large flat to have a permanent lodger, which means more money for me as well.

Yet even I have fallen victim to the toxic side this year, when due to the general 'Men Don't Talk About That', I wound up signed off work for three months with stress, depression and anxiety. I've since sought help, received help, continue to receive help, and am back at work.

Nobody but the most raving of nutters are saying masculinity is in itself toxic. There's nowt wrong with being a big manly man. But when you feel that's what you must be? That's when the problems come in.

Absolutely. This is bang on. I don't understand the whole incel thing. surely thats a self deprecating circle? My problem comes when you have elements of society saying tings along the lines of 'oh if men just cried more' 'if men just opened up about their feelings.' as if that would solve all problems.

I believe that sometimes it is necessary to hide certain things. for example, being in the military, I've learnt that its necessary to hide things that upset or offend you because if you dont someone will use them on you.

I'm all for men talking about emotional things and feelings.. I do it with my partner in the privacy of my own home. What I feel wont help is men breaking down into tears over every little thing in public.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I think "masculinity" and "femininity" are, to a large degree, social constructs. Like much of modern society, they may well have had some specific, evolutionary origin far back in the mists of time, but their perpetuation long ago became much more a matter of tradition socialised into children at a young age and reinforced by social expectations.

I think boiling down something as complex as a human being to one of two standardised "blocks" of behaviours and traits is ludicrously reductive and essentialist.

That said, I also think criticism of power and behaviour has become excessively gendered of late. Patriarchy is only one facet of the Power Hierarchy, and characterising negative behaviours which are universal among the powerful as male because the present structure of society tends towards men being more powerful is short-sighted and counter productive.

I agree and disagree here, they are social constructs, but borne of evolution and the role of the sexes. Men traditionally play the role of protector, provider etc. And I dont think this is a bad thing. You can try to break them down, and succeed to a degree, but you cant erase it entirely.

You've been reading the Guardian too much mate! Although we might have to do a few more chores around the house and be a bit more circumspect about checking out the new girl in accounts nowadays, that's hardly a crisis

In fact as society has become more individualistic and narcissistic I've found people putting less social expectations on me to live or behave in a particular way.

ValentineGames wrote:
It's honestly something that I don't even consider at all.
I just go through each day being me.
I don't care about being masculine or what some people think about me because of my genetic gender.
I have no interest in activities that make you a man (like getting drunk and beating up old ladies) and if a woman scoffs at me for politely holding a door open I close it and walk away.

I think you misunderstand slightly. I don't mean the act of trying to appear masculine, and those activities you list at the bottom, I wouldnt describe as particularly masculine.

The things i'm talking about are more along the lines of,

The drive for dominance, the roles of protector, honour, chivalry, stoicism etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
You've been reading the Guardian too much mate! Although we might have to do a few more chores around the house and be a bit more circumspect about checking out the new girl in accounts nowadays, that's hardly a crisis

In fact as society has become more individualistic and narcissistic I've found people putting less social expectations on me to live or behave in a particular way.

I do read the guardian, as I believe in knowing ones enemy

but I seem to hear a lot about this subject lately, and felt a need to present some sort of defence to the hugely one sided theory you see in the media.

The drive of dominance, roles of protector, honour.... ect

If those things are going away I'd say ABOUT TIME!!!!

A mentality focussed around those things is actually the reason why I'm a feminist and consider women better than men in pretty much everything.

I see only ignorance in a mind set oriented with dominance, the role of protector, etc, not masculinity.

Honestly, men do need to talk about their feelings more. Because right now, Men Don't Talk About That Sort Of Thing. And that is reflected in ridiculous suicide rates among young men. It's not about suddenly breaking down and crying at the drop of a hat. But it is about feeling confident enough to have a good cry when the occasion merits.

When there's an expectation that you need to provide, failing to do so can be a blow. Bottled up, that can become extremely problematic. Doubly so when asking for help 'isn't the done thing'. The phrase 'man up' is pointless and damaging when you think about it.

One need only look at the stuff that comes pouring out of Incel boards to see this writ large. The demand that women become chattel, because if you're not getting it whenever you want it from whomever you want it from, you might as well kill yourself. It's utterly moronic.

Again, I'll use myself as an example. To the outside eye, I seem to be very successful with the ladies. If I'm out, it's most often with my female friends. Most of whom would be considered really quite attractive. Yet....there is nothing more than friendship between us. Why I have so many attractive female friends, I'm really not sure. But part of it may be because I'm not constantly trying to bribe or guilt them into bed, or even giving that impression.

I bought one friend an umbrella she liked the other week. It's cool, with little bat wings and ears. I bought it for her because she was having an awful time, and I figured she needed some cheering up. That was it. The entirety of my motivation. Yet to others, it may seem like some sort of courting gift.

We need to sort this wide ranging issue out. And that requires a piping down on both sides of the extremes. Let the adults talk. Listen to those who say they're affected by it. You don't have to agree at the end of their speil, but you do need to have listened, rather than simply heard.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
The drive of dominance, roles of protector, honour.... ect

If those things are going away I'd say ABOUT TIME!!!!

A mentality focussed around those things is actually the reason why I'm a feminist and consider women better than men in pretty much everything.

I see only ignorance in a mind set oriented with dominance, the role of protector, etc, not masculinity.

Here, I do and I don't agree.

I do agree that they shouldn't be someone's entire motivation. That's a tough order, and can quickly lead to outright abuse, where your need to protect becomes stifling.

But I don't agree that want to protect others is an inherently negative thing. Take my God-Sprog. I loves her to bits, and I feel a great deal of responsibility toward her as a positive male role model. And I'd feel that even if her Dad wasn't a drippy loser too hung up on himself to give a damn about anyone else. The trick here is for me to offer the protection of support. To be there when she needs me, and know that fine line between waiting to be asked, and actively intervening when absolutely necessary. I'm not up for actively meddling or interfering with her life. I'll guide her, not lead her. Counsel her, not dictate to her. Help her move on, rather than dwell on 'I told you so'. That sort of stuff.

this is a very complicated subject right now, as it is both wrapped up in the politics of the day and poorly understood by most, if not all of the people who broach the subject.

Dakka has a no politics policy at the moment so be wary about what you all post otherwise the thread will likely get locked.

I think one issue with this is that its a little like concepts of sexuality and morals. A lot of it is stuff that we pick up on subtly as we grow up from a very young age. It's stuff we casually learn without realising for so long that it becomes something we "know" that feels like its how it should be at such an engrained level that its hard to logically step back and reappraise and many people can't or won't. so change can be slow and if it comes it can be darn messy and difficult - because at the personal level you're having to re-learn a lot of boundaries and concepts that you've established for yourself; most of which seem "logical" or did once work and were positive elements in life.



So change can be hard.
I do think that a lot of old gender roles are and have changed and will continue to change in a big way. We are seeing it being socially more acceptable for stay at home fathers to be a thing and I think this links into the rise in importance of women. I think that, for a time, when women were the homemakers there has been a social period where that whole side of life was looked down on - where it was a lesser thing. Where men did the real hard stuff in life and the work that brought home the money and did all the difficult things and women did the simpler, easier and less important things.

I think that as we've socially moved toward respecting women more we've also started to re-evaluate those old roles. To start to see them as having value, skill, work and importance in their own right.





As for myself I don't think about it much, there are certainly elements of how I behave that might be considered "typical male" and some that I likely don't think about and just "do" without any realisation. How much of that is "being a man" and how much is just "living" I've no idea. I wouldn't consider myself to be a manly man in how I act and behave nor even consider that a problem. I might enjoy and desire a higher level of fitness, but not because I want to "be a man" but because it unlocks so much potential to do MORE. At a purely functional level it empowers anyone - so for me something like that is more a skill just like drawing or electrical work etc... A skill to be valued in its own right for what it brings rather than as something that defines me as a gender.

Of course I'd say taht personal identity does come into play, I certainly feel that people have more identity when they've a role to play in life and that if you don't have a role to play or that role is considered "lesser" by society/pay/wages/a personally held viewpoint then that can grate on a person. However I think that grating pain isn't unique to any one gender.

Yea to be fair there is some good stuff in the Guardian, especially the long reads.

I supposed what we shouldn't do is equate "I have no problem in expressing my masculinity" with "No boys/men have a problem expressing.. etc."
Teen aged boys would be the best focus group, considering that is an important time for forming your identity.

If we want to reduce the occurrence of toxic behaviors in men (and/or women) I think we should be re-framing the discussion to be more positive.

e.g Instead of 'Don't do X to Y because it disrespects them', I'd prefer to see more of 'here are the life enriching benefits I saw when treating Y in this good way'.
That would make the conversation more constructive imo.

 Blackie wrote:
The drive of dominance, roles of protector, honour.... ect

If those things are going away I'd say ABOUT TIME!!!!

A mentality focussed around those things is actually the reason why I'm a feminist and consider women better than men in pretty much everything.

I see only ignorance in a mind set oriented with dominance, the role of protector, etc, not masculinity.

They aren't going away. They're trying to be forced away, and I believe that's not a feasible thing to do.
Furthermore, I believe that is actually the cause of a lot of the toxic elements, because men have no outputs for those things.

We also need to be better about showing peeps what is actually meant by consent.

For instance, non-consent does not necessarily involve physical violence. It can be persistence, the mere threat of violence or concern of violence etc.

That's an easier pill to swallow when you're young. Because once you've been around the block a few times and you figure this out, there's usually a few historical 'Oh....oh no' moments you can think back to.

 Kroem wrote:
Yea to be fair there is some good stuff in the Guardian, especially the long reads.

I supposed what we shouldn't do is equate "I have no problem in expressing my masculinity" with "No boys/men have a problem expressing.. etc."
Teen aged boys would be the best focus group, considering that is an important time for forming your identity.

If we want to reduce the occurrence of toxic behaviors in men (and/or women) I think we should be re-framing the discussion to be more positive.

e.g Instead of 'Don't do X to Y because it disrespects them', I'd prefer to see more of 'here are the life enriching benefits I saw when treating Y in this good way'.
That would make the conversation more constructive imo.

Yeah. This is true. But at the same time I think it's still pertinent to teach that there are times when it's necessary to mask those feelings


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
this is a very complicated subject right now, as it is both wrapped up in the politics of the day and poorly understood by most, if not all of the people who broach the subject.

Dakka has a no politics policy at the moment so be wary about what you all post otherwise the thread will likely get locked.

I'm aware, but the question I framed was not based in politics as far as I'm aware? Certainly less so than some threads I've seen in this forum

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
Yea to be fair there is some good stuff in the Guardian, especially the long reads.

I supposed what we shouldn't do is equate "I have no problem in expressing my masculinity" with "No boys/men have a problem expressing.. etc."
Teen aged boys would be the best focus group, considering that is an important time for forming your identity.

If we want to reduce the occurrence of toxic behaviors in men (and/or women) I think we should be re-framing the discussion to be more positive.

e.g Instead of 'Don't do X to Y because it disrespects them', I'd prefer to see more of 'here are the life enriching benefits I saw when treating Y in this good way'.
That would make the conversation more constructive imo.

Yeah. This is true. But at the same time I think it's still pertinent to teach that there are times when it's necessary to mask those feelings


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
this is a very complicated subject right now, as it is both wrapped up in the politics of the day and poorly understood by most, if not all of the people who broach the subject.

Dakka has a no politics policy at the moment so be wary about what you all post otherwise the thread will likely get locked.

I'm aware, but the question I framed was not based in politics as far as I'm aware? Certainly less so than some threads I've seen in this forum

The key is teaching that having emotional control is not relative to your gender in any way.
A healthy person of any gender should have the ability to both share their emotions and control them. There is no inherent reason why a man should "hide their emotions" more or less than a women. It's purely a social construct that might play off minor variation in genders.

Ergo a man shouldn't be taught to withhold displays of affection or their emotional state at all times; just as you'd not expect that a women should be blubbing and crying every time they break a nail.

True. But that is the message that comes across. There are times that certain emotions need to be hidden. Read the art of manliness post I linked above. It's a brilliant website and one I recommend to everyone.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

They aren't going away. They're trying to be forced away, and I believe that's not a feasible thing to do.
Furthermore, I believe that is actually the cause of a lot of the toxic elements, because men have no outputs for those things.

Having been involved in the generations happily ignoring these things and seeing the kids doing it even better, it's not really forced, it's just kinda nice to not have life requirements shoved up my pee hole because it sticks out.

Further, having been involved in feminist discussions repeatedly, as long as you aren't stupid enough to 'what about the men' them constantly, you can get plenty of input. The problem you're most likely seeing is as most of society wanders off to do it's own thing, it's further and further away from folks tied up to the old standards making it harder and harder for them to follow, or frankly even understand.

I think we're in a pretty good place right now, honestly. There are so many alternative models of what a man can be, and even the stereotypical super tough guys are willing to expose their more human depths. For examples, Neil Patrick Harris, an openly gay family man who does adorable costumes every halloween, played this generations' iconic fratboy womanizer. Nick Offerman, the perpetually stoic survivalist Ron Swanson, has a wonderful interview where he reveals he's considered the sissy in his family, and does puzzles with his wife for fun. Terry Crews by all rights ought to be terrifying, and can act like it- but is a man who played football to put himself through an art degree.


Right now, being a man is being whatever you choose it to be. Just commit to it, and make sure you're with someone that approves of your interpretation. Really, that's what consent culture is- you can be whatever you want, as long as you get the ok of whoever you're doing it to to be it. (My apologies, former sentence, for the grammatical crimes I just committed it) Want to hold open a door? Great, just ask may I get that for you? Or use 'would you like some help' before you pick up someone's bags at the grocery store.

No one's going to object if you kill a band of Mongolians attempting to pillage their land. They will definitely object if you demand they give you their 12 year old daughter's hand in marriage to secure your alliance.
Chivalry's like piracy- nice in theory and hindsight, but in practice ugly and brutal.

Also, Chivalry was more a code of conduct for war. Like not killing the other Nobles, instead capturing them for ransom.

Then came Agincourt Penny a Corpse, Peasantry! VERY GOOD MASTER!

For me this all boils done to the question of why Emotional Intelligence isn't a lesson in classrooms, we shouldn't have to wait until we become management to learn about these things!

Haha!
But indeed. I mean, clearly all of us here like painting little plastic dudes. Personally I'd much rather be doing that than be out on the town trying to chat up girls every night (that part of my life is over)
I don't think anyone is in disagreement that men can and should embrace things like that. In fact, if you look at victoria males, you could consider them total sissies comparing them to more modern ideals They wore pink, wrote soppy love poetry for their women and were obsessed with fair play and gamesmanship. This is my point. We need to accept and embrace certain values, not try and force them away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, Chivalry was more a code of conduct for war. Like not killing the other Nobles, instead capturing them for ransom.

Then came Agincourt Penny a Corpse, Peasantry! VERY GOOD MASTER!

http://m.lordsandladies.org/knights-code-of-chivalry.htm

It encompassed all facets of life, and I still feel there are elements that translate to modern life.

Do I think men, in general, have certain areas of social interaction they need to improve on? Yes, I do. But that is true of both genders. It's just a human thing to not always recognize when you are being a jerk, even a jerk to yourself.

I would like to say that I think men's shortcomings are being highlighted while women's are relatively glossed over. Case in point, a recent case in Australia. A gent on a live stream was interrupted several times by his wife. She repeatedly struck him, and was destructive to his property, despite 34 requests to leave him alone. He was cussing at her, and eventually slapped her. Note, I do NOT condone his violence. However, I wonder why he was charge with being a wife beater when she instigated the initial violence.

being a bloke really is easy mode, anyone says different is selling something

SOME men have tied their own masculinity to rape culture and social dominance. It is not their masculinity that is under threat, at all, but if they continue to maintain that linkage, they may feel their masculinity washed away along with the stain that is currently being cleansed.

It's like lashing yourself to the mast of a sinking ship.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Do I think men, in general, have certain areas of social interaction they need to improve on? Yes, I do. But that is true of both genders. It's just a human thing to not always recognize when you are being a jerk, even a jerk to yourself.

I would like to say that I think men's shortcomings are being highlighted while women's are relatively glossed over. Case in point, a recent case in Australia. A gent on a live stream was interrupted several times by his wife. She repeatedly struck him, and was destructive to his property, despite 34 requests to leave him alone. He was cussing at her, and eventually slapped her. Note, I do NOT condone his violence. However, I wonder why he was charge with being a wife beater when she instigated the initial violence.

Because hitting a person is different to hitting a thing.

Actually, I misread the post. I thought the wife was smashing stuff.

 JimOnMars wrote:
SOME men have tied their own masculinity to rape culture and social dominance. It is not their masculinity that is under threat, at all, but if they continue to maintain that linkage, they may feel their masculinity washed away along with the stain that is currently being cleansed.

It's like lashing yourself to the mast of a sinking ship.

What you are talking about is something of the "narrative character" of life.

What this thread is really asking, I think, is "what does it mean to be a man?"

And then, consequently, "what should it mean to be a man?"

Where you are going to run into though is the trouble in defining what "meaning" actually means though.

The problem is that no group is better than any other group; race, gender, sexual identity, etc. But we spent so long where being “white male” was the cream of the crop, that now it is almost taboo, socially, to be a white male. From my understanding, white men still make more in job fields, but there are hiring quotas in many places based on all fields EXCEPT being a white male; we don’t focus on qualifications, we focus on “do we meet our quota?” Colleges do this too. So if you’re a white male, you’ve had your time in the sun (even if you weren’t even born when that time was). It’s time for everyone else now. Except that’s a backwards way of thinking, that will eventually snap back to the white male getting his time again, some day in the future. It SHOULD be that it’s “time for everyone”- instead of “everyone else”.

The only people who are toxic are the ones who think one group is superior to another or “deserves more”. I (and all the rest of you) deserve what is earned; not what skin/gender/orientation “gets you”.

 JimOnMars wrote:
SOME men have tied their own masculinity to rape culture and social dominance. It is not their masculinity that is under threat, at all, but if they continue to maintain that linkage, they may feel their masculinity washed away along with the stain that is currently being cleansed.

It's like lashing yourself to the mast of a sinking ship.

NO men have tied their masculinity to "rape culture" in the west and "social dominance" needs to be defined, some level of social dominance is good, thats why we have goverments.

Just remember the "rape culture" statement is a political one, as stated before we are not allowed to talk politics on dakka (for good reason), were walking a fine line here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The problem is that no group is better than any other group; race, gender, sexual identity, etc. But we spent so long where being “white male” was the cream of the crop, that now it is almost taboo, socially, to be a white male. From my understanding, white men still make more in job fields, but there are hiring quotas in many places based on all fields EXCEPT being a white male; we don’t focus on qualifications, we focus on “do we meet our quota?” Colleges do this too. So if you’re a white male, you’ve had your time in the sun (even if you weren’t even born when that time was). It’s time for everyone else now. Except that’s a backwards way of thinking, that will eventually snap back to the white male getting his time again, some day in the future. It SHOULD be that it’s “time for everyone”- instead of “everyone else”.

The only people who are toxic are the ones who think one group is superior to another or “deserves more”. I (and all the rest of you) deserve what is earned; not what skin/gender/orientation “gets you”.

Some groups are better than others, thats life, that group of scientists over there, they are better at science that this group of gamers... guess what were better at, problem as you say comes in when you ONLY define people by what group they belong to, rather than taking context in mind, context always matters.

So when someone says "white male priviledge" they are acting in

A: indentitarianism
B: collectivism
C; Oppressor/Oppressed definitions.

but from what I have seen most of the people doing this do not know what they are doing or even why they are doing it, they usually lack an understanding of where such narratives come from and what it could ultimately lead to.

so a long way around of saying it, it has always been difficult to be a man, but these days, depending on context, seems to be very difficult in commparison to 10/20 years ago, I feel bad for the young men having to grow up in an age where they are irrationally hated based upon the colour of their skin or whats between their legs, we had words for that behaviour when I was growing up....

Is it really that hard to live you life by the basic creed "don't be an donkey-cave"?

The whole "toxic masculinity" is practiced by people who are insecure and are lashing out. Be it financial, physical, emotional or whatever these guys struggle with who they are and want a simple box to fit into to make them feel better about themselves and will push others around them to fit into that box so they can feel superior to someone else based on some made-up criteria.

I identify with the other poster who basically said "I'm comfortable in my own skin so I've never had a problem with acting masculine." It does help that I check all the boxes (minus the facial hair, I couldn't grow a beard as a grown man to save my life) so maybe my hitting the genetic lottery skews my understanding of the issue.

I personally long to be a one-legged, Somalian lesbian.

Life in the Colonies with a penis, blindingly pale skin, an English accent and mostly heteronormative sexual proclivities is just too, too hard.

Every group has their own version of "toxic masculinity" that they need to deal with. I've met my fair share of toxic feminists and toxic ethnic groups. Heck, there are even toxic social clicks.

It is annoying when one group is primarily called out on this issue. I've literally been told that there is nothing I can legitimately complain about as a cis white male.

Toxicity and in general toxic masculinity are very much apart. Being aware of it is the first step.

I used to be very unaware of what toxic masculinity was till someone explained it to me in full.

It is usually elements of a man's behavior that are based on assumption:

"Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away."

(https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/what-we-mean-when-we-say-toxic-masculinity)

Some other great points:

"Discussing toxic masculinity is not saying men are bad or evil, and the term is NOT an assertion that men are naturally violent. In fact, this conversation was started by men. (Jackson Katz’s TED Talk on the subject is a useful starting point.) It was also inspired by a feminist movement that had done much to unpack what might be called “toxic femininity” (think eating disorders that seek to control one’s eating and environment). After the good work feminism did to try to find better ways to teach girls about their options, men began to take notice and apply those same gender-construct theories to their own experience. "

Its like sucicide and how men are taught "DO NOT CRY THATS NOT MANLY ENOUGH!"

Is a common sentiment especially for people whom are naturally empathic or more in touch with their emotions. This common behavioral pattern is found all throughout. Its not to say always be crying but more in touch with your emotions and not holding it all in.

The most toxic part of being a man is how we are taught to hold it within and never to express it.

This leads to massive downward spirals of depression and bouts of irrational anger. It is fully healthy to express sadness, anger, but to do so constructively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Every group has their own version of "toxic masculinity" that they need to deal with. I've met my fair share of toxic feminists and toxic ethnic groups. Heck, there are even toxic social clicks.

It is annoying when one group is primarily called out on this issue. I've literally been told that there is nothing I can legitimately complain about as a cis white male.

Not really. Anyone who tells you that are toxic themselves. Men especially have higher suicide rates, while women generally struggle with body issues and eating disorders... but thats not just unique to women. Helk I struggle with overeating / stress eating and body image issues (family trait). Anyone who tells you don't have problems is full of it.

Now there is a difference between Privilege and Toxic Masculinity people often jumble them into the same sentence. But they are very different. One is experiential the other more behavioral. (but thats for another thread!)

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Personally I think that masculinity is in a sort of crisis, but not in the way portrayed by the media. I think the modern man is forced to suppress a lot of the good masculine qualities he posesses, and as a result, often engages in alternative outputs which propagate the idea of toxicity which is then jumped on by the media.

I believe that masculinity is vitally important for any culture, and to dismiss it as unnecessary is folly.

I think that masculine traits are important, but I think the modern world requires the truly successful to have skills and traits that are both traditionally masculine as well as feminine.

In fact, I think that the people most concerned about the crisis of masculinity see gender roles as mutually exclusive. That to be aggressive means you cannot be nurturing, that to be confident means you cannot be sensitive, and to be self reliant means you cannot be empathetic. In my experience, even a small dose of empathy, sensitivity, and compassion will allow any person to act in a socially acceptable way.

Ardently feminist transwoman here, so my perspective is somewhat different from many:

Masculinity itself is not... toxic. It didn't really work out for me, even in its benign form, but that's a me thing XD

There's masculinity, and then there's toxic masculinity, and then there's necessary warrior masculinity. More on this in a moment, but masculinity is simply the day-to-day enacting of social roles which are coded as male within your given social context.

As feminists, there's been long debates among us as to whether masculinity and femininity are genetically ingrained, neurological, deeply psychologically embedded by adolescence, enacted out of habit, or enforced by hormonal balance, as well as about how much intercultural variation there is between what constitutes gender. The experience of transition generally supports all of these being highly relevant factors, and studying other cultures generally shows that there's enormous variation on what constitutes masculinity and femininity. Okay, back to masculinity.

So you have your regular everyday masculinity, right? And then you have your toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity has to be constructed; there are no inherent behaviors which are by their nature "toxic masculinity" as opposed to regular masculinity. Toxic masculinity is created when certain aspects of masculinity are identified as harmful, either to those who exhibit them or those subjected to them, and is then siloed off as "toxic." Examples of things identified as toxic in our society, at least by feminists, are things like the propensity to treat everything as a zero-sum struggle, or suppressing emotional pain until it transforms into violent aggression directed at the self or others. Parts of regular masculinity on the verge of being siloed off into toxic masculinity include things like men tending to not form the same enduring friendships as women, which is a phenomenon linked to the rise of individualism in western cultures (far less of a problem in India for example), and which is a major contributor to the fact that most people who commit suicide are men (https://healthydebate.ca/2017/08/topic/male-suicide).

There are those who react to the idea of toxic masculinity, and its relationship with more healthy forms of masculinity, by doubling-down on it. Pickup artists, for instance. There are those who seek to improve themselves, examining their actions and seeing how the way they affirm their manhood matches up with helpful and harmful behaviors. And there are those who shrug, and use the separation we feminists have created to dismiss the possibility that they, a "good guy," could ever exhibit toxic behavior, creating an other-category out of "toxic men" while often displaying the same behavior. In that way, the separation can backfire, but overall it's more responsible I think than attacking "masculinity" as a blanket term. The more insecure someone is, generally, the more they exhibit toxic behaviors, since many of those behaviors are misguided attemtps to prove masculinity to oneself by enacting its most vicious, often-formally-forbidden forms of expression.

So what is warrior masculinity? Well, it's a third category which underscores the context-dependent nature of normative evaluations of masculinity (there IS a warrior femininity and a toxic femininity, but that's not the topic of this thread). Aggression, unquestioning obedience to higher-ups, instinctive defense of the unit, insensitivity to the suffering of others: all of these things are very useful in a war. But in the context of family life, civilian life, and even many wars which are not matters of pure annihilation, those behaviors are massively self-destructive. They also often leave people bereft of moral agency: if your guiding principle is loyalty and obedience to the higher-ups, then you cannot really make moral decisions. You have to trust that your commanders aren't evil, and unfortunately the vicious and ruthless tend to rise to the top of most human societies. Does the necessity of some form of warrior masculinity in some circumstances justify inaction over toxic masculinity? No, especially for the parts of it (eg. the lack of enduring close male-male bonds) which are totally unrelated to warrior masculinity. But it does complicate the issue a bit.

Where does 40K fit into this?
Eh, I dunno. I don't like bringing politics into 40k. 40k is easy to distance myself from, politically, because it's so over-the-top and silly. It's very easy to not compulsively evaluate and critique it because... it's 40k. I love this hobby so much because it's one of the few places I can completely shut down my political brain.

I watched a documentary called Tough Guise 2 a few months back. I'd recommend it; it's only a couple hours or so. It, alongside the criticisms I made of it at the time, informed a lot of this post.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Discussing toxic masculinity is not saying men are bad or evil, and the term is NOT an assertion that men are naturally violent.

Perhaps thats what the people who originally coined the term meant it by. However it is too often used to mean just that. Masculine things which are wholesome and good are lumped in as being toxic. Being the Provider, Protector, etc... are viewed as part of Toxic Masculinity so the term should be discarded because its not helpful. Tackle the problems directly. Don't use Masculinity at all to refer to these problems, it subconsciously moves forward the idea that masculinity itself is a bad thing when you use the term "Toxic Masculinity".

Being abusive is not a masculine trait, it is not caused by masculinity, and it has nothing to do with masculinity. Abuse is its own thing and should be tackled directly. It should not be tackled by demonizing other good traits that have incorrectly become associated with it.

If anything, it is a lack of masculinity that is the problem. Boys are growing up without good rolemodels for what it is to be a good man. Instead they only have what society teaches them. The breakdown of the family unit is the main culprit here.

Oh and don't worry about masculinity disappearing. We've been worrying about the death of masculinity at the hands of feminism for well-over a hundred years, and the arguments and timeframes given then are basically the same as the ones given now. masculinity evolves, as it has for thousands of years, but I don't see it disappearing.

Many of the traits of "being a man" are important and healthy, and not negative traits. There is no downside to being (mildly) aggressive, idealizing strength, and staying emotionally stoic. The problem is that when you take those to any sort of extreme to the point that they cause harm to yourself or others.

Currently, I feel "people" (referring to those in the American and Internet cultures, at a minimum) have a major issue with extremes. Just as many qualities of feminism at some values are entirely reasonable and actually fairly healthy, so are many qualities of masculinity. Instead of pointing at any particular thing, any -ism, and screeching in distaste, we should evaluate not just what is good of it, but to what amount those things are good and when they stop becoming so.

Of course, none of that is exciting or novel or galvanizing, so it's never said anywhere.

Instead I'll posit this:

No one can take your masculinity away from you except yourself. The very act of believing otherwise is to deny yourself your masculinity already.

 Danielle Rae wrote:
Oh and don't worry about masculinity disappearing. We've been worrying about the death of masculinity at the hands of feminism for well-over a hundred years, and the arguments and timeframes given then are basically the same as the ones given now. masculinity evolves, as it has for thousands of years, but I don't see it disappearing.

There is a big difference between the historical feminism and the modern version, I will assume you know this so I will go on another tangent, communication, this is the biggest thing that has affected the whole ballgame in modern times, the ease of which people can convey any idea has proliferated to the point its impossible to stop, though many are trying across many platforms these days.

recent studies have shown that the modern version of feminism has taken a hold of most if not all forms of education, right from 1st school right up to university, but that in and of itself is not the issue, its the form of that feminism, the route core of its ideology, it uses certain buzzwords and behaviours associated with certain political ideologies, and that is the problem people have with it, when you have a school system designed for woman, that bars men based on gender and race you end up with situations like this, promoting woman as a minority when they make up 55% of the UK population is frankly... absurd, they also make up 63% of university students.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9484597/White-males-now-classed-as-a-minority-group-at-university.html

Now there are many reasons for the falling numbers of men in university, one of which is the style of teaching in UK schools, a problem that US schools also have, so these woman who have been educated in a certain kind of ideology go on to work in many fields, but its the ones that end up in the media and entertainment industry that are the issue, the propergate that ideology that they have been taught throughout their time in higher education.

So we have a system that promotes woman, teaches them to a higher standard than men, a system that has quotas to recruit and promote woman not based on merit but on gender, all the whole leaving men by the wayside.

this has led to the bitterness of young men these days, they see a system designed to work against them and see an ideology that hates them if they act a certain way, so they have a choice, fight or flight, the ones that fight are called all sorts of names and defamed, the ones that dont are feminised men, both have their good and bad people but neither is accepted by the other, due to the system behind the feminsed men however they have the upper hand in the media industry, if anyone speaks out against them they are called names or worse, having their safety of livelyhoods attacked.

The saddest thing of all though is this, it cant even be talked about, being pro men means your anti woman to these people, case in point the mens rights marches in UK, US, Canada, Australia all being attacked by the ideologues, the ideologues backed by the media, people pretend or outright lie and say this is not true, that there is not a stranglehold and that its only the fringes that do this, it isnt, its mainstream, one need only check the news for the last month to see this is true, trying to call MRA's the usual buzzwords and making no attempt to understand that these individuals face all kinds of problems that are ignored or outright laughed at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL-uQqQxlJ8

These ideologies are in the mainstream media, the governments and nearly all walks of life now, so after a long waffle I say that yes, men, mens rights and masculinity is under a tangible threat in the west, the next ten years I think we will see the ramifications of this.

Well... I knew that was going to happen :/

Utter rot.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well... I knew that was going to happen :/

Knew what was going to happen?

 Formosa wrote:
The saddest thing of all though is this, it cant even be talked about, being pro men means your anti woman to these people, case in point the mens rights marches in UK, US, Canada, Australia all being attacked by the ideologues, the ideologues backed by the media, people pretend or outright lie and say this is not true, that there is not a stranglehold and that its only the fringes that do this, it isnt, its mainstream, one need only check the news for the last month to see this is true, trying to call MRA's the usual buzzwords and making no attempt to understand that these individuals face all kinds of problems that are ignored or outright laughed at.

I find that people tend to project their own perceived flaws and motives onto other people. People prone to cheat on others in relationships are typically concerned the other person is cheating. People who routinely lie believe others are lying to them.

Don't judge a person by their actions. Judge a person by how they react to someone acting the same way.

There’s also other, odder strings.

As covered, I’m a bloke. Fairly large in stature, and have suitably deep voice.

I work in high end consumer complaints. I have a far, far easier time on a phone shift and dealing with my consumers than the women. Why? Because being a bloke, society teaches I’m somehow more authorative. I’m more likely to know my onions. So when I’m telling someone ‘no, because’ I’m just more likely to have that accepted and indeed respected.

Sure, it’s not a universal thing. I still have to deal with the unreasonably unreasonable. Why, in April this year, one consumer decided to call me, now how did they put it again? Something like ‘short, Ginger, Fifer poof’. Now, I dunno about your tolerance, but nobody, and I mean nobody accuses me of being from The Kingdom Of Fife. Nobody. Passed the email on to my boss, and she told him ‘STFU, or we’ll throw your complaint out, and you can whistle’, or words to that affect.

Note the consumer did not attack my competence or suitability for the role. Just went for an (entirely inaccurate) physical description which I’m sure he felt would actually upset me.

So again, I have an easier ride, whilst others struggle through no fault of their own. How many times do you reckon you can deal with the unreasonably unreasonable before it takes a toll on your mental health? How many times can you deal with being told your incompetent and unknowledgable, only for the guy sat next to you to have no problem whatsoever getting the same person to accept exactly the same information? And that’s before we get into any kind of bias against race.

And it’s not just men that carry such an opinion. As I said, it’s societal in origin. And for many, a largely unconscious bias. Yet it affects the lives of 52% of the world’s population. Therefore, it’s a toxic trait.

The backlash against attempts to deal with toxic masculinity, and the role feminism plays in that, is largely made from ignorance. Saying ‘oh noes, mens can’t do nothing now’ is erroneous, and also damaging. Instead, it’s us men having to realise we can no longer live relatively free from the consequences.

‘playful’ touching? That now has consequences. Demeaning ‘banter’? That now has consequences. All that stuff. And the usual targets/victims know they’re more likely than ever to be taken seriously for lodging a complaint.

So in short, you can still be inappropriate to women. You’re just far, far less likely to get away with it. And that is objectively a good, good thing.

As covered, I’m a bloke. Fairly large in stature, and have suitably deep voice.

I work in high end consumer complaints. I have a far, far easier time on a phone shift and dealing with my consumers than the women. Why? Because being a bloke, society teaches I’m somehow more authorative. I’m more likely to know my onions. So when I’m telling someone ‘no, because’ I’m just more likely to have that accepted and indeed respected.

Could be more along the line that your voice is deep.
Have the same witnessed in my conscript time (yes switzerland conscripts us, no we don't plan to invade our neighbours, but someone has to contain the monarchist threat of Lichtenstein!)

All I know is that any time I’ve phoned a consumer back, with exactly the same information, I’ve not had a problem. And I objectively encounter fewer instances of people wanting a second opinion, let alone being Richards about it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All I know is that any time I’ve phoned a consumer back, with exactly the same information, I’ve not had a problem. And I objectively encounter fewer instances of people wanting a second opinion, let alone being Richards about it.

who do you think followed orders more, those bossed around by a small dude with a pipey voice or when there was the 2m giant with a voice that could do opera barritone?

Happens to me too. I have an English accent and am biologically male, people accept things that I tell them after they have rejected the exact same information from a Canadian/biological female.

Not sure how it's really all that relevant to toxic masculinity, though. Misogyny is a related, but different, thing

All part and parcel of the same thing.

I’m easily identified as a bloke, even when there’s no visual contact. I have an easier time of it as a result.

That a guy with a traditionally non-Male voice gets grief basically helps my argument.

I'm a supervisor in a government office, and one of the most consistent patterns of behavior I've seen from employees is that they will show more respect, and aquiese more quickly, to a male supervisor than to a female one. Oddly, in many ways female employees can be nastier to a female supervisor. Being male/masculine makes the job easier, even though we're supervising educated employees of wildly diverse backgrounds.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Happens to me too. I have an English accent and am biologically male, people accept things that I tell them after they have rejected the exact same information from a Canadian/biological female.

Not sure how it's really all that relevant to toxic masculinity, though. Misogyny is a related, but different, thing

I got lucky as in i just was forced to become NCO of Füsilere. Thankfully, i am also rather on the big side and with a voice to match.
But generally i found the most effective way to get people to do what you want is beeing not a dick, most polar envelop pusher or radicals with an agenda, regardless of position, will however continue to scream Toxic whatever the heck is en vogue. Sometimes it works for them, especially when they can cow someone into submission. IN essence it's like the highschoolbully but this time instead of beeing a gakky ass he now is ideologically indoctrinated gakky ass.

Said strategy works aslong as it does not go over the general accetable boundries and automatically creates it's polar opposite in society.

In the end, i reccomend anyone to try it with reason and if not ignoring. If said radical force becomes a problem in the society which threatens peace the saying of stalin comes into play and the state has to enforce its monopoly of force.

There certainly is a 'feminist agenda' but it is largely subconscious. Yes there is a gender divide and societal privileges and restraints on both sides, and society is rapidly evolving and a lot of the prior gender balance is being undermined. In some ways this can be a good thing, but no amount of feminism will get rid of misogynists, however it will unfairly label males in general, most notably those who do not deserve any negative associations.
The second problem is that while activists talk about equality they act for supremacy, there are ever shifting goals and standards often imposed by more extreme feminists, which I will refer here as SJW's on both genders the former purportedly for their own good and the latter as a power exercise. It takes no effort to offend those who seek to be offended for social or political gain, and heavy restitution is often demanded.

The tragedy is that SJW dogmas are in fact very weak. They have teeth because society gives the SJW's teeth, we know this is the case because it works on some societies very strongly and not others at all. White males it works on because of force multipliers enacted by society to make perceived offence actionable. It has zero or next to zero effect on males from certain ethnic communities. SJW's know this and choose their targets well. Make an allegedly inappropriate comment as a white male and you can face sanction, even for mere words or rumours of words. However those communities which actively entrench what can be be described as medieval practices on gender equality (lack thereof) get a free pass.

What really niggles at feminists is that a portion of women, possibly a larger portion than might be admitted to are not as interested in empowerment, a number of women are naturally content for a man to take control, its what they expect and its what they want. Incidentally a number of these women are finding partners amongst more extreme sub communities where men are 'real men' and command women. I can sympathise with feminism on this up to a point, however the gender balance is engrained in the human psyche, and modern memes are not going to eradicate that in a few generations. So some women are submissive or docile, others ambitious eager to grasp opportunity for themselves. Many feminists cant see this and insist to speak for everyone, those who do so are dangerously deluded.

Feminism will run its course, the 21st century will know hardship and shortage far more keenly than the 20th and people will need to grow with the darkening times. Our current urbane, metrosexual, harmonious society will not survive real hardship, as such is likely coming, Sooner or later western society will need its men to be men, and if this happens the breed of predatory feminist will eventually have to be told to shut up and put up. As they already, evidently, comply with this when facing multiple minority groups with entrenched paternal standards, in these the good times, I think in the face of hard reality it will happen with mainstream western society also.

I should also explain....

Most if not all my colleagues are graduates. I’m a tosspot with a clutch Of now 22 year old C grade GCSEs that got lucky.

Yes, I do know what I’m doing at work, and I am pretty good at it. But even so, the qualification gap is notable when people are unaware of it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Happens to me too. I have an English accent and am biologically male, people accept things that I tell them after they have rejected the exact same information from a Canadian/biological female.

Not sure how it's really all that relevant to toxic masculinity, though. Misogyny is a related, but different, thing

Midwestern male here with a deeper than average voice. I had similar experiences when I worked tech support on the helldesk. I was a point of escalation, not directly client-facing, so there was an inherent perception of authority presented as well when I got on the phone, but the ones who consistently needed me on the line to repeat what they just said most were usually the women there. We had a small clientbase that consisted of very regular people call in, which meant that it was pretty easy to identify that it was particular clients that were the problem. They frequently shared a common cultural background, but realistically you can't just blame that. donkey-caves are going to be donkey-caves, no matter where they come from.

The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Erm.

What?

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All part and parcel of the same thing.

I’m easily identified as a bloke, even when there’s no visual contact. I have an easier time of it as a result.

That a guy with a traditionally non-Male voice gets grief basically helps my argument.

I mean the fact that people respond better to a deep voice than a higher one.

There's all kinds of weird things at play when it comes to voices that can't be pinned on conscious thought. I'm from Leeds originally and I have a recognizable, though somewhat generic, 'Northern' accent which is targeted for employment U.K. call centres 'cause Northern/Scots/Irish accents are perceived to be more trustworthy and friendlier than Southern accents while people with Welsh accents are dismissed as 'dumb', per the research. Note I'm not saying that Southerners are less trustworthy or that the Welsh are 'dumb'.

People back home with my accent have a tendency to defer to people who sound like Rees-Mogg. Canadians and Americans have a tendency to defer to English accents, though they deny it vehemently.

IIRC, there's research that shows that new-born infants respond better to deep voices long before they have a chance to absorb any learned behaviours.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I should also explain....

Most if not all my colleagues are graduates. I’m a tosspot with a clutch Of now 22 year old C grade GCSEs that got lucky.

Yes, I do know what I’m doing at work, and I am pretty good at it. But even so, the qualification gap is notable when people are unaware of it.

One of my best mates is an experienced electrical and mechanical engineer, but not a graduate. He frequently has had encounters with overconfident recent graduates who know only just enough to be a liability to themselves and others and cannot be taught anything.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Erm.

What?

Contemporary feminism completely devalues the "feminine". Things like domestic family life, child-bearing, and more socially focused or care-based career choices are anathema to feminism, the goal of which is to achieve perfect parity between men and women along lines that are almost entirely defined by the "masculine". Social constructionists like to pretend there's no biological or behavioral difference between men and women and that gender roles are entirely composed of socialization as opposed to having any kind of evolutionary or biological component, but their standards of parity are that women take on more traditionally "masculine" gender roles to the total exclusion of "feminine" ones. Since there is a shift even in feminism to devalue and denigrate feminine roles, I posit that femininity is in crisis, rather than masculinity.

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

Certainly a better bargain than your substance-free comment.

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Interesting catch. I had noticed this but not phrased it quite this way before.

The way I see it, the societal definition of success is based on male ambitions not female ones. Therefore for a woman to be successful she needs to act like a man. Women should instead define what makes a successful woman instead and strive for those goals rather than competing with men.
If men are to help in this is it not be self flagellation but by no longer imposing male success as societal success as a whole.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

 daedalus wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Happens to me too. I have an English accent and am biologically male, people accept things that I tell them after they have rejected the exact same information from a Canadian/biological female.

Not sure how it's really all that relevant to toxic masculinity, though. Misogyny is a related, but different, thing

Midwestern male here with a deeper than average voice. I had similar experiences when I worked tech support on the helldesk. I was a point of escalation, not directly client-facing, so there was an inherent perception of authority presented as well when I got on the phone, but the ones who consistently needed me on the line to repeat what they just said most were usually the women there. We had a small clientbase that consisted of very regular people call in, which meant that it was pretty easy to identify that it was particular clients that were the problem. They frequently shared a common cultural background, but realistically you can't just blame that. donkey-caves are going to be donkey-caves, no matter where they come from.

Its entirely possible its a physiological thing vs casual discrimination. or a mix of both.

A higher pitch voice tends to be a thing associated with younger less mature children, as you age your voice tends to get deeper.

its possible a deep voice is associated with maturity and responsibility

edit woof a whole page few by should of refreshed first.

 Orlanth wrote:

The way I see it, the societal definition of success is based on male ambitions not female ones. Therefore for a woman to be successful she needs to act like a man. Women should instead define what makes a successful woman instead and strive for those goals rather than competing with men.
If men are to help in this is it not be self flagellation but by no longer imposing male success as societal success as a whole.

Exactly. When "feminine" goals and ambitions are seen as lacking value compared to "masculine" ones, the measure of success is masculine in nature.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Erm.

What?

Contemporary feminism completely devalues the "feminine". Things like domestic family life, child-bearing, and more socially focused or care-based career choices are anathema to feminism, the goal of which is to achieve perfect parity between men and women along lines that are almost entirely defined by the "masculine". Social constructionists like to pretend there's no biological or behavioral difference between men and women and that gender roles are entirely composed of socialization as opposed to having any kind of evolutionary or biological component, but their standards of parity are that women take on more traditionally "masculine" gender roles to the total exclusion of "feminine" ones. Since there is a shift even in feminism to devalue and denigrate feminine roles, I posit that femininity is in crisis, rather than masculinity.

Many feminists advocate for greater societal and economic valuation for childcare, teaching, nursing, and other traditionally feminine-coded occupations and activities, as well as advocating for maternity and paternity leave in countries like the US which don't have it. There's a lot of support for getting fathers more involved in childrearing, which thus far has been somewhat successful (although the economic realities of precarious work and rising rent means that many families can't afford to do much parenting). This is a point of contention, I'll admit, between the older second-wave liberal feminists who often fit the description you give here and the younger generation of third-wave feminists.
Some feminists involved in Black Lives Matter take it a step further, advocating for a renaissance in the role of the extended family in childrearing, which is a constructive reaction to the increasing prevalence of multi-generational homes due to economic constraints. If they were trying to devalue childrearing, they would not be trying to get everyone involved in it and proposing it as a solution to societal woes.

 Desubot wrote:

Its entirely possible its a physiological thing vs casual discrimination. or a mix of both.

A higher pitch voice tends to be a thing associated with younger less mature children, as you age your voice tends to get deeper.

its possible a deep voice is associated with maturity and responsibility

edit woof a whole page few by should of refreshed first.

True. That's not something I can rule out.

 Luciferian wrote:

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

Personally, I've got better things to do today than pointlessly engaging in argument with a person who has already clearly demonstrated that they prefer their opinion over facts and who has clearly demonstrated they have little understanding of the subject matter.

It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold laughably ignorant opinions. Knock yourself out.

 daedalus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The saddest thing of all though is this, it cant even be talked about, being pro men means your anti woman to these people, case in point the mens rights marches in UK, US, Canada, Australia all being attacked by the ideologues, the ideologues backed by the media, people pretend or outright lie and say this is not true, that there is not a stranglehold and that its only the fringes that do this, it isnt, its mainstream, one need only check the news for the last month to see this is true, trying to call MRA's the usual buzzwords and making no attempt to understand that these individuals face all kinds of problems that are ignored or outright laughed at.

I find that people tend to project their own perceived flaws and motives onto other people. People prone to cheat on others in relationships are typically concerned the other person is cheating. People who routinely lie believe others are lying to them.

Don't judge a person by their actions. Judge a person by how they react to someone acting the same way.

Without a doubt that is true I agree, maybe not to the same extent as you possibly mean but people will always insert their bias into any discussion, the hard part is to try and push that bias to the side as much as possible, its a hard one.

Judging a person by how they react is judging their actions btw but get what you mean.

little annecdote, a friend of mine has been fighting for access to his child for the last 2 years, he finally got it, he ex wife was so angry that she was literally screaming in the court about how he will beat the child etc. a week later she takes his son over to his house and literally abandons him, she said she does not want anything to do with the child anymore, he puts in for custody and she signs it, again she flies off the handle when she finds out that she has to pay maintanance for the child.

Just recently the child states that she had been abusing him, we had all wondered if she had and now social services looking into it, she has now been denied contact with the child until the investigation is over.

as you say, projection.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Interesting catch. I had noticed this but not phrased it quite this way before.

The way I see it, the societal definition of success is based on male ambitions not female ones. Therefore for a woman to be successful she needs to act like a man. Women should instead define what makes a successful woman instead and strive for those goals rather than competing with men.
If men are to help in this is it not be self flagellation but by no longer imposing male success as societal success as a whole.

Yeah, I've noticed a pattern like this before. It's like the obsession of a lot of third wave feminists that there must be parity for both males and females in areas like STEM jobs, and despite it opening up a lot more opportunities towards females, women just don't seem as interested and the field is still dominated by men. Instead of seeing this as just not being a particularly female oriented area, feminists decry this as being symptomatic of the males in the field being the reason why women don't want to be in the field, claiming it to be toxic or otherwise. Which seems counterproductive, when women should be praised and allowed to make their own choices for career paths, not pressured into going for traditionally male dominated fields just because they are "empowered" to do so. It's a fundamental issue with the idea of equal opportunity leading to equal outcome, when its really one or the other.

Notably, I never see feminists wanting parity for less high profile or glorious, or even dangerous jobs that the are done by men, like any type of hard-labour work, such as mining,

I think I'm gonna bow out. I've said my piece, and if I stay in the gender debate here I'll start thinking of politics whenever one of you guys gives me helpful painting/gaming tips.

A very good friend of mine quit his job to become a stay at home father while his wife continues to be the breadwinner.

I continue to refer to it as the Swindle of the Century. He's never said he agrees, but I've never seen him happier.

I'm just going to put these two posts right next to each other for posterity:

Excommunicatus wrote:
They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Excommunicatus wrote:
Personally, I've got better things to do today than pointlessly engaging in argument with a person who has already clearly demonstrated that they prefer their opinion over facts and who has clearly demonstrated they have little understanding of the subject matter.

It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold laughably ignorant opinions. Knock yourself out.

And also a reminder that I've provided an argument and you haven't, just the assumption that your opinion is correct without any presentation of facts whatsoever.

I agree that feminism has lost its way massively in the modern age, and has devalued the work of its predecessors. However, let's try and stay away from men vs women at risk of becoming too politically focused.

I think it's clear that having positive male role models is vitally important to society. For example, children from happy families with a father present have been proven to do better in school, act up less in adolescence, less likely to end up in jail or with a criminal record, and less likely to end up obese. So in that context, do we have good male role models in society?

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All part and parcel of the same thing.

I’m easily identified as a bloke, even when there’s no visual contact. I have an easier time of it as a result.

That a guy with a traditionally non-Male voice gets grief basically helps my argument.

I mean the fact that people respond better to a deep voice than a higher one.

There's all kinds of weird things at play when it comes to voices that can't be pinned on conscious thought. I'm from Leeds originally and I have a recognizable, though somewhat generic, 'Northern' accent which is targeted for employment U.K. call centres 'cause Northern/Scots/Irish accents are perceived to be more trustworthy and friendlier than Southern accents while people with Welsh accents are dismissed as 'dumb', per the research. Note I'm not saying that Southerners are less trustworthy or that the Welsh are 'dumb'.

People back home with my accent have a tendency to defer to people who sound like Rees-Mogg. Canadians and Americans have a tendency to defer to English accents, though they deny it vehemently.

IIRC, there's research that shows that new-born infants respond better to deep voices long before they have a chance to absorb any learned behaviours.

Oh on the point of dialect:
Generally it is consensus in Switzerland that Germans are arrogant, most of that has to do with 2 things:
A: Germans tend to switch to highgerman when they meet other germans in order to stop misunderstandings, in Switzerland Highgerman is generally only used by the State or in offical doccuments and only there. (Now every german speaks highgerman with a swiss german which inteprets this then by accident as an authoritarian form of order which annoys us then, basically the german tries to be polite, the swiss german allready bursts a vein so to speak)

B:Highgerman has very specific mannerisms which are regarded as highly impolite in swissgerman dialects: F.E. if you intend to order a beer in high german it is perfectly acceptable to say the following: Ich krieg noch ein Bier, bitte. (I get a beer. please) meanwhile in swiss german: Entschuldiged sie, chönnti ich bitte na es bier ha? (excuse me, could i please have a beer?)

In another word: Dialects are often regarded as more familial (friendly) whilest the offical language is often more authoritharian.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I agree that feminism has lost its way massively in the modern age, and has devalued the work of its predecessors. However, let's try and stay away from men vs women at risk of becoming too politically focused.

I think it's clear that having positive male role models is vitally important to society. For example, children from happy families with a father present have been proven to do better in school, act up less in adolescence, less likely to end up in jail or with a criminal record, and less likely to end up obese. So in that context, do we have good male role models in society?

I think we're short on positive role models in general. There are always good people out there doing good things and presenting an example, but once again, our culture values something totally different. Narcissism, self-promotion, material wealth and social status are endlessly promoted through mainstream culture and our age of social media stardom. There are plenty of great public figures who are doing amazing things in their fields and providing an example of what it means to be responsible, professional, respectful, civically-minded, or any number of other virtues, but they don't get anywhere near the attention. I think that applies pretty much equally to male and female role models.

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm just going to put these two posts right next to each other for posterity:

Excommunicatus wrote:
They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Excommunicatus wrote:
Personally, I've got better things to do today than pointlessly engaging in argument with a person who has already clearly demonstrated that they prefer their opinion over facts and who has clearly demonstrated they have little understanding of the subject matter.

It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold laughably ignorant opinions. Knock yourself out.

And also a reminder that I've provided an argument and you haven't, just the assumption that your opinion is correct without any presentation of facts whatsoever.

Again, it's no skin off my nose if you want to sit around being laughably wrong and slapping yourself on the back for it. The responsibility to educate you is yours, not mine.

Nie mój cyrk, nie moje malpy. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Ok.

Again.

Huh?

I ‘posit’ you’re just using an argument courtesy of A.N.Other, that you yourself don’t actually understand?

 daedalus wrote:
A very good friend of mine quit his job to become a stay at home father while his wife continues to be the breadwinner.

I continue to refer to it as the Swindle of the Century. He's never said he agrees, but I've never seen him happier.

Honestly that sounds amazing. I would love to be the stay at home dad and be able to take care of my future kids, but I don't think that will happen, most likely it will probably be both of us working full time.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly that sounds amazing. I would love to be the stay at home dad and be able to take care of my future kids, but I don't think that will happen, most likely it will probably be both of us working full time.

I know, right? I mean, it'd have it's ups and downs all over the place like everything does, but it really does look like he came out on the winning side of that deal.

Many feminists advocate for greater societal and economic valuation for childcare, teaching, nursing, and other traditionally feminine-coded occupations and activities, as well as advocating for maternity and paternity leave in countries like the US which don't have it. There's a lot of support for getting fathers more involved in childrearing, which thus far has been somewhat successful (although the economic realities of precarious work and rising rent means that many families can't afford to do much parenting). This is a point of contention, I'll admit, between the older second-wave liberal feminists who often fit the description you give here and the younger generation of third-wave feminists.
Some feminists involved in Black Lives Matter take it a step further, advocating for a renaissance in the role of the extended family in childrearing, which is a constructive reaction to the increasing prevalence of multi-generational homes due to economic constraints. If they were trying to devalue childrearing, they would not be trying to get everyone involved in it and proposing it as a solution to societal woes.

Agreed. Actual feminists or people who support rights are not wholly focused on womens rights, but minority rights and human rights.

Those youtube vids of crazy feminists are just that. Crazy people with extremeist views.

Not to be political but that is what we are seeing when someone brings up "Oh feminists have lost their way." Have they? Or are those just extreme versions that no one bats an eye at?

Extremist movements might seem large but they are rarely a large population of people. Assuming everyone that wears the feminist banner has the same ideological base or beliefs is wholly unrealistic.

As would anyone say the same about men's rights groups. AS there are extremists in those groups as well. (Milo for example)

Toxic Masculinity is the critique of traits that are negative from a male prespective, just as is there is a critique toxic feminity. They both exist, one is just more relevant today than yesteryears. Toxicity can be found in accepting it as "Boys will be boys" a saying greatly emphasized by the Brock Turner case where his father vehemently defended his son's extremely toxic behavior.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly that sounds amazing. I would love to be the stay at home dad and be able to take care of my future kids, but I don't think that will happen, most likely it will probably be both of us working full time.

I know, right? I mean, it'd have it's ups and downs all over the place like everything does, but it really does look like he came out on the winning side of that deal.

I too have thought it would not be a bad setup. Though I think I would still feel an obligation to provide, plus a single income is difficult for a family nowadays unless it’s a very high paying job.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

It's because the premise is grounded in notions so fundamentally, spectacularly off base, that addressing it would take more work than anybody has energy for anymore and probably wouldn't amount to much. It would be like trying to explain the merits of the offside rule to somebody who didn't realise soccer involves a ball and opens with an argument about how the players' horses should get more rest breaks.

For example, one of the most fundamental, core concepts feminism engages with is how - as a society - we devalue unpaid domestic work (and indeed any other labour considered "feminine") and how that could be addressed. Like, it's unmissable, it ties into everything else one way or the other. You can't talk about reproductive rights, workplace presence, political representation, parental rights, housing, wages, anything without that context.

To not know or understand that, indeed to assert something contrary to it, means you don't know the absolute basic building blocks of the thing and moreover, don't consider that an impediment to speaking with an air of authority. It means you've been sold some weird funhouse mirror caricature of feminism and bought it too eagerly to question any of the obvious discrepancies with it. Nothing about that suggests we're in a good faith situation and nobody here is at their first rodeo.

If you want to understand feminism ask a feminist, not Facebook or some youtuber dude who has A Lot Of Ideas About Where Feminism Went Wrong. Otherwise you might accidentally wind up repeating bizarre misconceptions that speak more loudly about where you get your ideas than you may realise.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ok.

Again.

Huh?

I ‘posit’ you’re just using an argument courtesy of A.N.Other, that you yourself don’t actually understand?

What exactly is so hard to understand about what I'm saying? In regards to policy in particular, the current drive is to put men and women in competition with each other, especially in the job market, and to measure the success of individuals and initiatives according to values that would traditionally be defined as "masculine" rather than "feminine". The impetus is on women to take on traditionally masculine roles rather than vice versa.

If you want to understand feminism ask a feminist, not Facebook or some youtuber dude who has A Lot Of Ideas About Where Feminism Went Wrong. Otherwise you might accidentally wind up repeating bizarre misconceptions that speak more loudly about where you get your ideas than you may realise.

Basically.

I didn't know anything about feminism for a long ass time and only watched youtubers for my info till I learned "Wait these people are full of it!"

Sometimes looking at the facts and reading from these thinkers and philosophers is far more valuable and enlightening.

I mean its like some random person walking up to a Ultiltarian Philisopher asking them "Oh what do you think of the net happiness effect? Nothing well course not!"

When that random person knows nothing on that subject matter. Having insight into how an ideology works is far more valuable than not.

Its like the idiom "Put yourself in someone else's shoes."

I think if men create their own image of toxicity. Every time there is an argument of 'what was she wearing?' or 'she didn't clearly say no' or 'oh guys are just like that' it reinforces the idea that men are sex-crazed thugs who can't control their own actions. And the vast majority of those arguments come from men themselves. The reality is that if you treat the people around you with respect you have nothing to be afraid of. I see those men who are afraid due to the #metoo movement as sniveling cowards afraid that they may be held accountable for treating other humans badly. I do not say that lightly or without a lot of thought behind it. And I would gladly say it in person given the chance.

As for feminism, it just means that women should be treated equally. Some individuals like to hold up extremeists claiming themselves to be feminist as examples because it sells much better than 'bu-but I LIKE being the favored gender!'

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think if men create their own image of toxicity. Every time there is an argument of 'what was she wearing?' or 'she didn't clearly say no' or 'oh guys are just like that' it reinforces the idea that men are sex-crazed thugs who can't control their own actions. And the vast majority of those arguments come from men themselves. The reality is that if you treat the people around you with respect you have nothing to be afraid of. I see those men who are afraid due to the #metoo movement as sniveling cowards afraid that they may be held accountable for treating other humans badly. I do not say that lightly or without a lot of thought behind it. And I would gladly say it in person given the chance.

As for feminism, it just means that women should be treated equally. Some individuals like to hold up extremeists claiming themselves to be feminist as examples because it sells much better than 'bu-but I LIKE being the favored gender!'

Idris Elba said something similar. "If your afraid you have something to hide." Which i find very true. People who are afraid of the mee to movement shouldn't be if their fear is unfounded, if it is. Well Maybe you should be or turn it over and admit your mistake.

Most people should be respectful to one another it ain't hard.

You made some good points there but then ended with an appeal to authority that was unnecessary.

But please let's stay away from feminism. I have plenty of views on many facets of feminism, but I don't want this thread to go there as it will get too political. Also please keep debates civil, that's how we move forward.

 Luciferian wrote:
the current drive is to put men and women in competition with each other, especially in the job market

Without judgement on anything else you have said, this in particular does seem to be an interesting short term side effect of the "Women in STEM" push, as advocated in particular by various tech companies. Long term of course this would balance out, but you'd still have a net positive change in supply of workers until it did.

Equally interesting is the venn diagram of those companies and the ones who have come under fire (for the most consequence-free definition of 'fire') in the last decade for colluding with one another via anti-poaching agreements to keep wages suppressed.

You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I see those men who are afraid due to the #metoo movement as sniveling cowards afraid that they may be held accountable for treating other humans badly. I do not say that lightly or without a lot of thought behind it. And I would gladly say it in person given the chance.

After a certain person's comment that it's a "very scary time for young men" I had a patron at the library I work for say the same thing to me (being the only young man working there. Also a librarian, and that's a whole story about being a guy in a vastly-woman populated field). I could only shrug and reply, "The only people who says thing like that are scared of being caught."

 daedalus wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
the current drive is to put men and women in competition with each other, especially in the job market

Without judgement on anything else you have said, this in particular does seem to be an interesting short term side effect of the "Women in STEM" push, as advocated in particular by various tech companies. Long term of course this would balance out, but you'd still have a net positive change in supply of workers until it did.

Equally interesting is the venn diagram of those companies and the ones who have come under fire (for the most consequence-free definition of 'fire') in the last decade for colluding with one another via anti-poaching agreements to keep wages suppressed.

That's exactly the kind of policy drive and subsequent consequence that I'm talking about. If you must, consider it feminism being co-opted by something like corporate interest. Companies win when everyone is driven to be a wage slave and value career advancement above things like family life or other non-competitive goals, and the fact that most real-world policies in the corporate and legislative worlds take such an approach shouldn't be that surprising.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why?

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
The ironic thing about contemporary feminism is that it appears to value the "masculine" above all else, and hold it as the standard for everyone to achieve. It's a concerted effort to make women more like men in every way, with much less effort being put into the reverse direction. As such, I'd say that femininity is in crisis much more than masculinity is.

Idk who's selling you this stuff, but they're ripping you off.

They're doing what everyone with an agenda but no argument does, making things up.

I guarantee you that person has never read MacKinnon or Dworkin.

Funny that all of the responses to me so far have included exactly zero arguments. I'm very familiar with feminist theory, as well as the actual policies and outcomes that result from it and their effects. If you disagree with what I'm saying you might try to address it directly.

It's because the premise is grounded in notions so fundamentally, spectacularly off base, that addressing it would take more work than anybody has energy for anymore and probably wouldn't amount to much. It would be like trying to explain the merits of the offside rule to somebody who didn't realise soccer involves a ball and opens with an argument about how the players' horses should get more rest breaks.

For example, one of the most fundamental, core concepts feminism engages with is how - as a society - we devalue unpaid domestic work (and indeed any other labour considered "feminine") and how that could be addressed. Like, it's unmissable, it ties into everything else one way or the other. You can't talk about reproductive rights, workplace presence, political representation, parental rights, housing, wages, anything without that context.

To not know or understand that, indeed to assert something contrary to it, means you don't know the absolute basic building blocks of the thing and moreover, don't consider that an impediment to speaking with an air of authority. It means you've been sold some weird funhouse mirror caricature of feminism and bought it too eagerly to question any of the obvious discrepancies with it. Nothing about that suggests we're in a good faith situation and nobody here is at their first rodeo.

If you want to understand feminism ask a feminist, not Facebook or some youtuber dude who has A Lot Of Ideas About Where Feminism Went Wrong. Otherwise you might accidentally wind up repeating bizarre misconceptions that speak more loudly about where you get your ideas than you may realise.

As much as i hate to do it, but this ain't the way pals:

First off, he is correct you did not give him a counter argument.

Secondly: saying that you don't need to give him a counterargument to his point because he did not read a book about said ideology also does not work. Mainly because this is a societal topic, in any way shape or form he is influenced and potentially hit by it, therefore he can judge the policies, which he pointed out can lead in extreme fringe cases to wierd and frankly not common sensical situations. The correct way would've been to show f.e. that the expansion of the workforce overall brought more wealth to the society, therefore these fringe cases are to be regarded as (negative-) sideeffects but also as a minor inconveniece.

Thirdly: IF HIS FACTS are so wrong, then it should be easy to disprove him. If you just give up and say he is stupid in essence (btw passive ad hominem is stillad hominem) that only leads to a further radicalization of him and leads to people sympathizing with his view more then yours.

Fourth: Not all feministic categories care about the undervaluation of unpaid work.

I just had to utter my gripes with that argument.

It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then i implore you to do so.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Okay so why post at all?

If your not offering any arguments at all or challenging other people then what is the use of even posting in this thread? Couldn't you have sighed got away from your computer and done anything else?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

All you're doing is continually demonstrating the behavior you're insisting I would engage in if you actually addressed what I'm saying. I'm just going to leave this topic because I agree with you that nothing productive will come of it, that much is clear.

Casualty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

Suicide can also be regarded under cultural influence and belive system people have.
Catholic Christians are f.e.way less likely for suicide then Protestant since the absolvment of sin can in combination of belive prevent suicide.
Tendencially though the value of stoicism and the disgrace that is pinned on a "weak" male certainly also lead to higher rate.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

So do it. Your posts so far have consisted of little substance, with those consisting of more than one statement, full of dismissive comments full of poor critical thinking. That's not conductive to a good debate.

Casualty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

Feminism is also a men's issue. A core tenet of feminism is that traditionally feminine traits should not be discriminated against, looked down upon and discouraged. Toxic masculinity is the opposite action and you can't talk about one without touching on the other.

Disqualifying feminism from discussion is, prima facie, little more than an attempt to skew the debate in a more favourable direction for that poster's argument.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then i implore you to do so.

That's not going to happen.

It isn't my responsibility to debunk obviously incorrect and obviously entrenched opinions. I'm not going to spend hours debating a flat-earther, or an anti-vaxxer or a neo-Nazi and I'm not going to debate someone who claims to understand feminist theory and then supports that point by posting a lot of rot that amounts to no more than personal opinion and bears little resemblance to feminist theory.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then in spending so much effort repeatedly answering about how unwilling you are to answer that person, it seems you've already decided their opinion for them.

In taro adun.

Casualty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

Exactly. The suicide argument is an easy bulwark for those propagating the idea that masculinity oppresses men. However they disregard societal factors, such as work stresses, financial stresses, the inherent prejudice against men in the divorce/child custody courts etc.

I feel that these are more often more relevant in the male suicide rate than being forced to suppress their feelings.

 daedalus wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then in spending so much effort repeatedly answering about how unwilling you are to answer that person, it seems you've already decided their opinion for them.

In taro adun.

It's taken me probably less than ten minutes total to post everything I've posted here. There's no equivalency with spending hours and hours and hours debating with a person who is proudly wrong and resistant to facts.

Nice try though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

Exactly. The suicide argument is an easy bulwark for those propagating the idea that masculinity oppresses men. However they disregard societal factors, such as work stresses, financial stresses, the inherent prejudice against men in the divorce/child custody courts etc.

I feel that these are more often more relevant in the male suicide rate than being forced to suppress their feelings.

Yep.

It's not the bit of toxic masculinity that says you can't show feelings, even though it at least partially is, it's the bits of toxic masculinity that you arbitrarily reject as toxic masculinity that cause it, with some utter nonsense about family courts thrown in.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

Feminism is also a men's issue. A core tenet of feminism is that traditionally feminine traits should not be discriminated against, looked down upon and discouraged. Toxic masculinity is the opposite action and you can't talk about one without touching on the other.

Disqualifying feminism from discussion is, prima facie, little more than an attempt to skew the debate in a more favourable direction for that poster's argument.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then i implore you to do so.

That's not going to happen.

It isn't my responsibility to debunk obviously incorrect and obviously entrenched opinions. I'm not going to spend hours debating a flat-earther, or an anti-vaxxer or a neo-Nazi and I'm not going to debate someone who claims to understand feminist theory and then supports that point by posting a lot of rot that amounts to no more than personal opinion and bears little resemblance to feminist theory.

The difference there is that those things have science to back them up, whereas this is a societal issue, and thus opinions need debating. That is a false comparison. I've tried being reasonable here, but your pretentious self sanctified rhetoric and unnecessary latin sign offs are getting a little trying, so maybe just leave.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Casualty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

Why not though? Toxic masculinity is something that arguably claims men as its first victims, it's a men's issue and I don't think its at all a stretch to correlate it to really serious public good issues like suicide rates.

I can definitely see why the conversations overlap so often, but I don't see them as inherently linked at all.

Feminism is also a men's issue. A core tenet of feminism is that traditionally feminine traits should not be discriminated against, looked down upon and discouraged. Toxic masculinity is the opposite action and you can't talk about one without touching on the other.

Disqualifying feminism from discussion is, prima facie, little more than an attempt to skew the debate in a more favourable direction for that poster's argument.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It is easy to disprove the comments made.

It still isn't worth the effort. Anything contrary to their opinion will be dismissed out of hand and opinion will be inserted to cover.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then i implore you to do so.

That's not going to happen.

It isn't my responsibility to debunk obviously incorrect and obviously entrenched opinions. I'm not going to spend hours debating a flat-earther, or an anti-vaxxer or a neo-Nazi and I'm not going to debate someone who claims to understand feminist theory and then supports that point by posting a lot of rot that amounts to no more than personal opinion and bears little resemblance to feminist theory.

I really like you, and I normally don't play advocati diaboli on such debates, but until now you have only repeatedly berated him for his opinions.
Sidenote again what the theory says it wants and what exponents of said theory want are also vastly different, so differentiate that out. https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/huffpost-editor-says-new-years-resolution-is-to-kill-all-men.html

And explain f.e.that said position is also only a fringe radical minescule part of said group.

 Excommunicatus wrote:


It's taken me probably less than ten minutes total to post everything I've posted here. There's no equivalency with spending hours and hours and hours debating with a person who is proudly wrong and resistant to facts.

Nice try though.

Yet you dutifully return over the spread of about... three hours now to continually reiterate your stance of how much you aren't going to bother.

I have no dog in the fight, but it is becoming boring.

The fact that you can't use extremists to paint the whole has already been laid out and dealt with.

David Duke doesn't speak for all Americans, Ezra Levant doesn't speak for all Canadians and David Icke doesn't speak for the British.

The discussion of the topic seems to have degenerated as quickly as might have been expected.