Being male in the modern age.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Excommunicatus**

You cant discuss toxic masculinity without discussing feminism.

**infinite_array**

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."

**Luciferian**

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.

**queen_annes_revenge**

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

Why?

**Not Online!!!**

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.

**Excommunicatus**

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.

**Casualty**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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.

**Asherian Command**

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?

**Luciferian**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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.

**queen_annes_revenge**

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.

**Excommunicatus**

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.

**daedalus**

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.

**queen_annes_revenge**

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.

**Excommunicatus**

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.

**queen_annes_revenge**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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.

**daedalus**

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.

**Excommunicatus**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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