Is the term “toxic masculinity” useful?

More
5 years 9 months ago - 5 years 9 months ago #322105 by OB1Shinobi

Adder wrote: .
....but my sentence....was meant to be more like "Do you attack the abusive use of discriminative principles....


Yes!
Maybe, lol.
If we mean the same thing with a term like "discriminative principles". I see the idea of discriminatory principle to be that you cant single out a "birth-based" group (such as a race, ethnicity, or sex) and instill a cultural assumption of negative associations to that group. Saying all white people are oppressors is just as racist as saying all black people are criminals. Attempting to subtly convince society to accept either of these views is a perpetuation of discriminatory principles. Saying that "toxic masculinity" doesnt count as being discriminatory because: reasons, isnt a convincing claim to my ears.

The boundaries of the group "college students" are a product of each individual students behavior. They have to behave in a specific way in order to be a member of the group. Economic brackets are also a useful grouping, as are groups based on geographic locations. Theres all kinds of useful ways to group people but one general rule is that if you equate moral value (which is determined by individual behavior and which words like "toxicity" most certainly do) to birthright groups (which have nothing to do with the morality of a persons behavior as they are the result of simply being born a certain way) then youre perpetuating a discriminative worldview.

Man/woman relations is a topic where birthright grouping is inevitable, BUT it doesnt have to be framed as a battle: If youre a straight (heterosexual) man or woman then its much more likely that youd benefit by seeing it as an ongoing process of figuring out sexual compatibility and mutually beneficial domestic collaboration, rather than a g-damn war. By choosing the war-narrative, the "toxicity" narrative, you impose a fundamentally combative framework onto the relationship. They claim its always been there but i think theyre wrong.


if I knew what I was saying then I wouldn't be pushing myself hard enough :silly:



Thats awesome way to see it, actually.


Because I guess, while we use different definitions of what toxic masculinity is, we are probably not even discussing the same thing....It's just seemingly not relevant to turn that into something else just to argue against it.


There are so many hostile groups out there that its too damn hard to keep up. Theres neo-nazis and white nationalists, antifa communists, a wide assortment of cultural marxists, black separatists, black hebrew israelites, ultra-nationalistic militias, hardcore religious fundamentalists, even a bunch of creepers who want to ease the cultural taboo against adult/child sexual relations. Who-knows-how-many hundreds of others just here in the USA.
ALL of these groups are in pursuit of specific public agendas and cultural shifts that i see as harmul to my society. All of them are also capable of deveopling logical ideas and persuasive arguments in favor of certain positions or axioms that they hold to be true. If a white nationalist makes a case that has some logical coherence and some smidgen of factual, historical accuracy, it doesnt mean that what he's saying is true. Despite any portion of truth which it might contain, it is in essence a data packet of ideological bias. Just so with toxic masculinity. I dont really see it as useful to gloss over that larger context in order to quibble over the minutiae. I imagine the citizens of Troy arguing over the accuracy of the wooden horse at their gate...."but does it have the correct number of teeth?!?" they say. "Are its ears angled in the proper direction?"
Who cares, dont let it in.

The only place I thought this discussion should go was what is toxic that is being associated as masculine, which is exactly the type of discussion this label is meant to produce I imagine... and it would serve to highlite that not only can men or women exhibit it, but that it also has negative impacts on both men and women.



I think both you and Carlos have done a good job of expressing that everyone is capable of "toxic" behavior. Being a selfish or insensitive person doesnt have a gender bias and its something we're all prone to and at some time or another we're all guilty of. It may very well be that men and women tend to display selfishness and insensitivity differently and that these differences are fairly clear when you average it out over large populations, but thats not the (relatively unbiased) conceptual framework thats being offered by those who built the horse-- those who are using the term. As youve already seen...

DeboraJ wrote: There is no Toxic Femininity possible in a patriarchal system.



Thats not a misinterpretation of doctrine on DeboraJ's part, its as fundamental to the theory of toxic masculinity as any other bit of it. Its whats inside the horse. The data packet being introduced is fundamentally skewed. Its biased. As a great Calamari friend once said "Its a trap!" Lol

Dont let it in.


Such that it is not anti-male in the slightest, it just happens that most of the perpetrators of it are and most of the victims of it are not.... but not 'all'. So as I see it its not an attack on all men, or masculinity. In fact its a good platform to make masculine more masculine!!!


I personally think a better platform would be to focus on "Healthy Masculinity". Which i would be very happy to engage in that discussion if people wish to. What does it mean to be a "good man" and how does one get there from wherever he may currently be? What qualities do men often aspire to and benefit from, and what qualites do women typically find attractive in men? What makes a good son, brother, lover, boyfriend, husband, father? And what of gay men? What of trans persons? What role does and should masculinity play in the lives of those who dont live within the boundaries of the "traditional" norms? Excellent topics of conversation, and coming from a very different place when framed in this fashion, imo.

And who should we be listening to on the topic anyway? I did a search on "gender studies professor" and clicked the "images" tab to get a look at some of these "experts". At the risk of judging a book by its cover, im not convinced that these are the people most qualified to speak as authorities on the nature of masculinity.

Dog Pile

Google

People are complicated.
Last edit: 5 years 9 months ago by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Zenchi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 9 months ago #322109 by Zenchi
"Dammit, perhaps I should have killed my father and mated with my mother and sister like I saw my chickens do!!! May nature guide you is a dodgy mantra to heed too much IMO." - Adder

LOL!

I wish I had more time today to reply to everyone's posts, Luthiens included. Will try sometime tomorrow if another 10 posts haven't popped up on top of what's already been said...

Thanks everyone for keeping your posts intelligent and civil!

My Word is my Honor, and my Honor is my Life ~ Sturm Brightblade
Passion, yet Serenity
Knighted Apprentice Arisaig
TM- RyuJin
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 9 months ago #322111 by

OB1Shinobi wrote: Plus the honest reality about it is that we dont know to what degree gender differences are biiological vs cultural. Gender studies has adopted the social constructivist vidw that its all cultural aka "socially constructed" and has no real basis in our physiology, which seems prettry irrational to me. You can look at men and women and see we are quite different.


Gender and sex have been distinct since the 18th century, when it was a common belief that the only differences between men and women are genitals (Harvey, 2002). The going thought during that period was that there was only one sex and two gender expressions. Though in everyday speech gender and sex are used interchangeably, the definitions differ in that sex refers to one's genital presupposition and gender is that which refers to one's differences within a social and cultural context, instead of through a biological lens (Gender, n.d.). In other words, sex is biological and gender is social/cultural. It's not a lefty thing, nor ideological. Misconceptions make people assign blame for their own confusion.

References

Gender. (n.d.). In Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

Harvey, K. (2002). The century of sex? Gender, bodies, and sexuality in the eighteenth century. The Historical Journal, 45(4), 899-916. doi:10.1017/S0018246X02002728

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 9 months ago - 5 years 9 months ago #322116 by OB1Shinobi

Luthien wrote: Gender and sex have been distinct since the 18th century, when it was a common belief that the only differences between men and women are genitals (Harvey, 2002).



Welp, there goes the patriarchy! Lol

Teasing ;-)

"Born this way" is a biological argument.

Here is a prettty short video clip of a lecture by prof Robert Sapowlski on the neurobiology of sexal orientation and [gender] identification....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIULZOLS4BM


Heres a more recent article which briefly discusses some of the differences between male, female, and trans-gendered brains.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

There is a biological component to gender identity. There is a cultural component to gender identity. Exactly how much is biology and how much is culture is still being debated. Those who say its all one and none of the other are either misinformed or are being dishonest. A university professor has access to experts and the full scope of literature on most, any given topic, and cannot claim to have been misinformed lol

People are complicated.
Last edit: 5 years 9 months ago by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 9 months ago #322117 by
I've seen that video before, as well. I'm interested to see any conclusions. Yes, they've seen that transgender brains are different than cisgender brains. They've also seen that the identity with which the transgender person identifies scans more closely as their identified gender. But, the implications of that finding are double-sided. While it would be affirming for those who come out as such, it may also be seen as a tool to use against them. There's a slippery slope in there somewhere, which remains to be mentioned. I won't sensationalize it or make it an issue, as it's not related to the topic of TM (or is it?). Well, this is quite a complex thing to discuss, indeed.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 9 months ago - 5 years 9 months ago #322124 by OB1Shinobi

Luthien wrote: I've seen that video before, as well. I'm interested to see any conclusions. Yes, they've seen that transgender brains are different than cisgender brains. They've also seen that the identity with which the transgender person identifies scans more closely as their identified gender. But, the implications of that finding are double-sided. While it would be affirming for those who come out as such, it may also be seen as a tool to use against them. There's a slippery slope in there somewhere, which remains to be mentioned. I won't sensationalize it or make it an issue....


Im not sure what the slippery slope is that you mention but as to the point about new knowledge being used for and against people: it is sad that this is true but my personal view (with which i assume you agree) is that learning the truth of a matter is more important than how "the bad guys" will try to misuse it. The "good guys" will use the truth as it needs to be used and thats what im counting on.

The way that I see it, it is for medical and mental health professionals to determine what constitutes illness and mental illness and what doesnt, and i am leaving it to them to work that out. We are all entitled to our opinions but we arent all equally competent to form opinions on every topic. I trust the healthcare disciplines. I know they are not always right, and they may go on believing something that is incorrect for quite some time, but they do their best with the information that is available and they sincerely have everyones best interest at heart, including trans people. They can serve best by having the most accurate picture of whats really going on, and that picture should not be obfuscated by ideology.


....as it's not related to the topic of TM (or is it?).



I think so, yes, in two ways. First is that if we're going to talk about masculinity, toxic or any other kind, then we want to know as much as possible about what masculinity really is. How is it defined and what are its boundaries? What causes it and what are its benefits? If it has a biological component (which it clearly does) then that needs to be openly acknowledged and explored.
Like virtually all other human qualities, we can show that masculinity is partly "nature" and partly "nurture". Thats why i introduced the video and article into the discussion, because they are quick, compelling, and easily accessible bits of evidence that there are in fact biological elements to gender identity. In NO credible field of study is ANYONE claiming that complex human behaviors and characteristics are all "nature" or all "nurture".
Which brings me to the second way that its relevant to TM: gender studies people (and the crazy left in general) are in fact claiming that its ALL "nurture" - that its ALL environment- in spite of the fact that we know without any doubt that virtually nothing is ever ALL one or the other. This is extremely relevant to every claim they make: they lack any scientific or intellectual credibility because their unfalsifiable claims and theories are demonstrably contrary to the proven facts which have been established a result of legitimate scientific methodology.

Facts to which they have full access and of which they have no plausible excuse to be ignorant. What does that mean? It means they lie. At best, at very best they deliberately choose to disbelieve and disregard what the science indicates, picking and choosing the bits which support their narrative from those which dont. Which isnt EXACTLY lying if a lay-person does it, but is essentially the same thing as lying in an academic context.



EDIT
So, i am being something of a broken record. The essential theme of most of my posting here has been "no trust crazy lefty gender studies" lol and i feel i make reasonable case as to why, but i also feel im beating the horse to death.
People seem to want to talk about the unhealthy ways that masculinity might express itself and how stereotypes about what it means to be masculine are the cause of all kinds of evil deeds, and i keep pulling the conversation away from that.
Also, the new week has begun and im about to be very busy yet again. For all of these reasons i may not be posting for awhile. I will keep up with the discussion and definitely will try to reply if anyone addresses me directly. Thanks for reading, peace!

People are complicated.
Last edit: 5 years 9 months ago by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 9 months ago - 5 years 9 months ago #322140 by Adder
For example, the whole concept of 'alpha' male is probably more toxic then healthy.... taken primarily from monkey's who, lets face it, have a bit of trouble communicating anything above the must simple of concepts, bonk, give, take, mine, go away, come here etc. Why we would choose to base any model of social organization on that I dunnaknow. All it seems to do is show how a primitive langauge set favours dictatorial domination and widespread subordination. If we consider human social evolution then it makes sense that the dominant individual became a dominant group, based around the same attributes which empower the 'alpha'.

In the present day with concepts of equality and human rights, the idea is to move up a few rungs from the monkeys.

But its not without merit because we are related to apes and monkeys more then anything else seemingly. My preference to replace concepts of 'alpha' headed structures is to limit the replacement categorization to its physical focus, and instead perhaps associate it to three classes of person, the muscle fibre composition they were born with! To categorize general trends in physical capability (all other things being equal). The benefits of this is it caters to the physical realities of benefit from physicality in social dynamics when its relevant, but better represents the actual differences in the physicality, instead of a wierd monkey hybridized social structure based just on physicality being ported over as some model of human social structure.

So in my opinion would be; be big and strong fast twitch sprinter type, the combination fast and slow middle distance runner type, and the slow twitch long distance runner type. Or Type II fast, Type II medium, and Type 1, predominance. Being capable of short duration high performance, medium duration medium performance, and long duration low performance respectively.... this then has nothing to do intrinsically with any social structure, but can afford some guidance to the development of social structures when required in particular circumstances which might be more suited to any one of the three categories over the others, rather then just assuming 'alpha' is always in charge because they are stronger. This way it is more open to giving authority to people more suited to it in the same regard as the system it would replace. It is more inclusive basically but also more accurate. Perhaps these should have been the 'somatotypes', instead of appearance and lifestyle outcomes like was used in the classification of Mesomorphic, Endomorphic and Ectomorphic. That system actually supported the alpha concept I guess, because the mesomorphic was seen as the more masculine... just because it was strong and healthy seemingly.

That is sort of my approach in how I see less effective concepts of masculinity. Yes of course 'alpha' isn't limited to men in humans when we try to shoehorn the concept into our lives, but in its original form it still referenced physicality, so even going a bit deeper and considering it being in essence the capability to exert influence over others because in this space we compete because we need to consume and so measures for a social structure to exist must have some measures of authority to limit toxic competition ie destructive of the social structure - so I still think it is a bit limited by its design even in that view, and basically not in keeping with the principles of how I see the Doctrine here (in regards to human rights, equality etc).

My example isn't very acutely toxic most of the time, so its not a good example of toxic masculinity, but rather just me talking about how toxic masculinity fits into the way I think... so this was just a random post :D

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 5 years 9 months ago by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: , Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 9 months ago - 5 years 9 months ago #322141 by Carlos.Martinez3
In my
Practice
The term “alpha” was ever present in my life from the get go. As I matured and began to create and seek my own character - I had to make adjustments and re define words in my own life. From the definitions and what was passed to me the term alpha was definitely toxic. I know as humans we all have our own definitions from where we live to the books we read to the education we possess - but that word for me -HAD to change. That was my desision. Now it has a entirely different meaning and a well thought out path if I ever do use it.
The ability to label things without blame is one of the hardest things in life - period. A step further is to take responsibility and even a few more steps foward is to create a new definition if needed. We can label anything - anything.... but that doesn’t change - well anything ! Thanks Adder for reminding me about that one !

Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
pastor@templeofthejediorder.org
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
Last edit: 5 years 9 months ago by Carlos.Martinez3.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi