Debating the existence of toxic masculinity/femininity

I, uhh, think I made the last post that was relevant to the OP, so I don't have any new banter to add on that subject.

Sorry guys.

Zenchi and Kyrin,

Br John says the next time either of you communicate with the other, this includes veild pot shots and low blows, you are gone.

Zenchi, if you communicate with Kyrin, you are gone. Kyrin, if you communicate with Zenchi, you are gone

Rosalyn J wrote: Zenchi and Kyrin,

Br John says the next time either of you communicate with the other, this includes veild pot shots and low blows, you are gone.

Zenchi, if you communicate with Kyrin, you are gone. Kyrin, if you communicate with Zenchi, you are gone

I'm not bothering to log in unless absolutely necessary so have at it, enjoy....

JamesSand wrote: Spoiler - Nothing to do with the OP or thread subject, just troll-feed.

Warning: Spoiler!

Just because I don't agree with a social norm and violate that boundary does not mean I should leave to find one that does accept it.

Yes it does, on a couple of levels.

For example, if I don't wear shoes to the shops, they won't do business with me.

If I complain, they call the police, who tell me the shop owners have a right to refuse to do business with me, and a right to have me removed from the premises if I don't abide by their policies.

If I then escalate my argument and tell the police to sod right off, they'll politely inform me that I can spend some time down at the station to discuss etiquette (shoes optional)

Society, (and this Church) is neither free nor fair.

But you knew that already didn't you?

This is right on topic. He who has power defines what is harrassment, what is a slur, what is acceptable, what is toxic and what isn't. There is no such thing as justice, and objectivity/neutrality never wins anything for the simple reason people are enslaved to their emotions, not to reason.

This is right on topic. He who has power defines what is harrassment, what is a slur, what is acceptable, what is toxic and what isn't. There is no such thing as justice, and objectivity/neutrality never wins anything for the simple reason people are enslaved to their emotions, not to reason.

Alright, I'll engage - Who has the power? It's an amorphous sort of thing, and can vary room to room, street to street.

What is harassment in my office might not be harassment at a cafe, or also at my work in another context.

I can't speak for your town, but around here there's not a clear single sheriff who sets the rules.

I think this...toxic...thing is (as I think I kinda already tried to say) is about mental health and overall social function and cohesion, not so much about equality or fairness or gender roles.....

I suppose that is what many who dislike the “toxic masculinity” terminology fear... the rules being set not based on reason but based on what is fashionable, to calm the angry Facebook and Twitter mobs demanding their gender-neutral safe space.

to calm the angry Facebook and Twitter mobs demanding their gender-neutral safe space.

following on with Ren's bit - does that mean the angry mobs have the power?

but yes - I don't think it is outlandish to suggest that there is a reasonable amount of, if not fear, at least "healthy suspicion" that these great enlightenments are just another drive by a group to broaden their influence, whatever that influence may be.

and we are very good at being a Mob.

Why, I had never imagined that the directing body for a popular sport, or a razor company, would become ethical guides for me...

they probably didn't either, but their PR team told them if they didn't make themselves of the solution (to a problem they probably have not well identified or understood) then they'll lose money.....


The problem is, it's not so clear cut....there is usually at least 5% truth. Maybe men growing up in the eighties in Australia DO have a problem with their behaviour or beliefs because of...who knows? the music at the time? the working conditions at the time? the work their parents did? the laws on drinking?

Maybe if we could drink at work we wouldn't go to happy hour at 6pm so we wouldn't expect the wife to have cleaned the house and done the cooking by the time we come home..., and also binge drinking would be less of an issue, so we wouldn't believe that being able to "smash tins" was a sign of masculine success....and we wouldn't have all the men sitting at the pub, at 6pm, drunk, talking about their wives and big-noting each other on who has the best one with the best attributes, and then (being drunk, and credulous) going home and being upset that our partners don't meet the descriptions all our "buddies" gave of theirs....

As far as I can see it, all of societies problems stem from me not being allowed a martini with my cruskits at work....

It can be hard to pin down the root cause to problems, and "All X are Y" is rarely going to be a reasonable assessment.

Manu wrote: I suppose that is what many who dislike the “toxic masculinity” terminology fear... the rules being set not based on reason but based on what is fashionable, to calm the angry Facebook and Twitter mobs demanding their gender-neutral safe space.

I view the term “toxic masculinity” as a culture-weapon. It isnt as much a question of whether it ostensibly points to real phenomena, as much as what is the true intent behind coining the term and what will be the actual impact it has on our cultural cohesion- is toxic masculinity an idea that enhances understanding and promotes cooperation in an already fragmented and multi-faceted society or is it a gigantic god damn wrench in the works? Does it result in real insight into what it means to be human or does it just give us a new way to vent hostility towards one another?

The term may be accurate enough if you have the intellectual discipline to narrow it down to a very specific (and relatively miniscule) set of behaviors and motives, (even then i wonder if it is the most accurate possible term to describe those motive and behaviors) but the real-world impact of the idea is simply that men are assholes..... and i believe that was the point all along. Got to defeat that evil patriarchy, dontcha know.

men are assholes.

or orbiting beta incels....one of the two....

This term is used exclusively as a weapon by the SJW feminists to criminalize the concept of being male. That’s all it is. In their eyes males are the enemy and they are weaponizing terms like this to attack masculinity. They believe that males are somehow responsible for all the ills that trouble our society today and they have rallied around terms like this to virtue signal to each other their contempt for males in general. The term itself espouses the idea that men are failing to properly teach their boys the proper way to conduct themselves in society. While it’s true that men are typically more rambunctious, and naturally aggressive but that does not equate to automatic toxicity. The very idea that men are not allowed to find females attractive or approach them on the street or a store to talk to them is ridiculous.

What is actually creating problems in society is not too much masculinity it’s a lack of masculinity. Single parent families where the mother is the care giver is higher than it ever has been. Over 50 percent of black families and 30 percent of white families are this way. Over 75 percent of teachers are female. It seems more likely that incidents of abuse are the result of a lack of male guidance of these young boys by male examples. Boys without a strong male presence to teach them responsibility and decency are forced to figure it out for themselves during those formative years of dealing with hormones they can barely understand. That is the major problem in societies today.

When these SJWs merge masculinity with toxic masculinity it rips away the ability to maintain traditional roles of masculinity such as being a gentleman, taking responsibility, providing and containing emotions to the extent that those emotions don’t take control of them. It is a self-defeating idea and it’s just stupid. 70 percent of male prison inmates, gang members, high school dropouts, suicides and addicts grew up in a single parent home. These ideas are sobering and really speak to the fact that instead of demonizing men as toxic we should be crying out in anguish for these men who are being stripped of their ability to be men by these disgusting terms and situations.

If this continues these SJWs will eventually realize that have shot themselves in the foot because it is actually men that are the only wall of protection for them from the wolves and the cold.