Debating the existence of toxic masculinity/femininity

Toxicity is subjective, nothing more than an opinion.

Toxic black mould fights other toxic black mould in order to survive. That's where the 'toxic' comes from.

The duck reproductive system exists so we get to have ducks. (Look it up) I take it ducks are toxic.

You are jealous of hour neighbour's kids education so you do extra shifts to send yours to a better school. Jealousy is previously described as toxic in this thread. Giving your kids a better chance of success is toxic.


Etc

So, bear with me, I am not from the US so I might be missing something, but...

What I am getting from this topic is that some people dislike “toxic masculinity” because it is vague, overgeneralizing and broadly misleading into antagonizing a whole group of people.

So, similar to when liberals disliked “radical Islam”

Physiological toxicity is not subjective, and so behavioural and social toxicity probably isn't either, rather its just harder to pin down. It's easy to say everything is subjective, but the subjective experience of objectivity is not real subjectivity IMO.

I think toxic is anything harmful such that continued exposure leads to destruction of what its acting upon. So when statistics start revealing things like the large (and disproportional) number of women being killed by their partners in DV incidents, and the high rate of male suicides, and general high level of male violence.... a society starts trying to address peripheral aspects of cultures which might feed the factors around those things when they can easily be identified and have no other useful function. They are isolated as being of no use AND harmful, therefore they are identified as toxic. The idea being if they are of no real use, and removed, it improves the health of the society and its members, including the men.

Manu wrote: So, bear with me, I am not from the US so I might be missing something, but...

What I am getting from this topic is that some people dislike “toxic masculinity” because it is vague, overgeneralizing and broadly misleading into antagonizing a whole group of people.

So, similar to when liberals disliked “radical Islam”

Nope, you are conflating two different concepts and that is a fallacy. Masculinity is not an organization or a spiritual paradigm. It is a set of physiological attributes of the male species. Islam on the other hand is a made up artificial exclusive club that supports misogyny, prejudice, oppression and occasional violence in the name of an imaginary yet blood thirsty god.

Adder wrote: Physiological toxicity is not subjective,

How did you come to that conclusion? Of course it is! In the first place you have not defined toxic so how can you say its not subjective?

Physiological toxicity is not subjective

Err.. Yes it is.

ren wrote:

Physiological toxicity is not subjective

Err.. Yes it is.

No its not. Actually its really not even a valid term. How is something physiological toxic?

Well take peanuts and people.

To some people peanuts are toxic, to other people peanuts are a harmless tasty source of protein.

Whether a peanut is toxic rests entirely on the subject's physiology.



Looking at your previous reply i think you just experienced a najor brainfart Kyrin :silly:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Masculinity is not an organization or a spiritual paradigm. It is a set of physiological attributes of the male species. Islam on the other hand is a made up artificial exclusive club that supports misogyny, prejudice, oppression and occasional violence in the name of an imaginary yet blood thirsty god.

Ha! Conservatives make me laugh. So do liberals. I guess I just like to laugh.

Toxic masculinity is just as much of a made up, relativist term as radical Islam. Just like I am sure some men might find what others accept as "masculine" appalling, the same thing happens to people who labels themselves as being members of Islam.

You might do well to model Ren in how he calls out fallacies. He actually takes the time to show proof for what he is calling. You just use the word fallacy like modern feminists use the word "patriarchy".

The experience of it is subjective, all experience is subjective... but its not the experience of it which is being discussed, its the existence of it both inside the subjective world and outside the subjective world in the objective world.

If it were all about the subjective experience with no concern for objective reality, then it would be without care of causal footprint and degrade to banal emotional conduct which would quickly devolve to violence under the lowest level of social interaction.... like competing for resources etc. The subjective experience of it has some value, in understanding the objective changes resulting from it - but no-one is talking about predicting objective impacts from imagined subjective experience - its the objective reality emerging from all those actual subjective experiences which allows something to be identified, measured and assessed. That is my understanding on how a policy need is developed, but addressing a need does not make for good policy alone and so inevitably at some point one must delve into the finer details and even venture into understanding subjective experiences within the event to ensure policy impact does not worsen the situation by changing it, for obviously not all change is good and its the process which determines rash and reactionary progressive efforts from considered and conservative progressive efforts.

Physiological toxicity is both a subjective experience of an objective reality, and an objective reality of the physiological system undergoing harm. But as mentioned the former is really only relevant to how one feels about something within the context and circumstance of when it is being experienced.

So to with social and behavioural toxicity, there is the subjective experience of participants but this does go to represent an objective footprint once it leaves the subjective experience, as it derived action or other type of impact to self or other. The toxicity exists less in the subjective experience of the person doing it (else they probably wouldn't do it) but that does not mean it does not exist.... for thinking that would just be a very narrow and self centered perspective AFAIK.

Yeah, our perception of our experiences are completely subjective. Yet there are things that through all these experiences that we can define as objective..

Jealousy, since I used it as an example, is objectively bad due to its motivation. If you push your child out of a self-centered desire to surpass someone else, or even just to fulfill your desires for them. You ignore your child's true self and cripple their ability to manifest it.. now this may not always be the case, but selfish behaviours of the soul like this can cause pains and divisions..

Toxic/Toxicity, as we're using it, is defined as, "extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful".. So toxic behavior, whether passive(feminine) or aggressive(masculine), is objectively harmful by definition..

However, I believe that The Force works towards the best outcome for all situations.. even if we don't have the foresight to understand what that is..

Even if that abysmal shadow only creates warped reflections. They have real power in this world on people's minds, bodies, and souls. So it is the responsibility of those of us "in the know" to combat these powers within ourselves. Then project that victory outwards..

If you push your child out of a self-centered desire to surpass someone else, or even just to fulfill your desires for them. You ignore your child's true self and cripple their ability to manifest it.. now this may not always be the case, but selfish behaviours of the soul like this can cause pains and divisions..

Well this opens up an interesting line of thought. I vaguely remember a joke about how hard life was for the Jackson 5 children. They didnt get to be “normal” kids because they had to spend so much time practicing their music. The punchline to the joke was something like...”i wish someone had beat my ass into being rich and famous.”

:laugh:

I dont know how well that comes through over text lol

Anyway, I do agree with your point but i think my emphasis is different.

I dont have kids - which i admit is significant to my opinions about parenting lol - but ive always believed that if/when i ever did have children, i would only give them a choice about which musical instrument they learned to play and which martial art or athletic activity they prefered. There other things, like being able to read a map and shoot a gun, get a job at a certain age, have a savings account, understand credit, etc. Theres just a lot of things that i would expect them to do and to learn, regardless of how they felt.

These are all reflections of my own values and life experiences: lessons that i either benefited from having or feel i suffered for not having. And thats part of what raising children is, i assume. Partly, you want to protect them and just allow them the space to grow up healthy. But the other part is that life is a meat grinder: its competiive and dangerous and difficult and full of treachery and tragedy, and its the parent’s responsibility to prepare their children for all of that. Necessarily, that means you someties (or, often) push your children in directions they dont want to go.